Financial Markets

Highlights The equity risk premium (ERP) is distorted: too low. The Eurostoxx600 uptrend is reaching a technical limit according to its 130-day (6-month) fractal dimension. The U.S.-Euro area bond yield spread is distorted: too high. The Spain-France bond yield spread is distorted: too high. The Italy-Germany bond yield spread is not distorted. Feature Central banks' massive interventions in markets have left many investors wondering: has the market's price discovery mechanism become dysfunctional - and if so, where most severely? It is a good question because clearly, the prices that are most distorted are also the ones most likely to dislocate, and generate lucrative opportunities. This week's report assesses the distortion in three important relative pricings: the Italy-Germany sovereign yield spread; the U.S.-euro area sovereign yield spread; and the prospective excess return from equities over bonds, otherwise known as the equity risk premium. The Italy-Germany Bond Yield Spread Is Not Distorted We often hear the claim that the ECB's bond purchase program has compressed periphery bond yields relative to core yields. But we find no evidence for such a distortion. For example, relative to the ECB's capital key1 and other guidelines for bond purchase volumes, there is a larger ongoing supply of Italian BTPs than German bunds.2 So from a technical perspective, the ECB's interventions should have depressed German bund yields more than Italian BTP yields, thereby expanding the spread. Chart Of The WeekLow Volatility: We've Been Here Before... And It Didn't Last In fact, the technical distortion seems quite small because the Italy-Germany yield spread can be fully justified by its two underlying fundamentals: relative competitiveness (Chart I-2) and euro breakup probability (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Euro Area Yield Spreads Depend On Relative Competitiveness ... Chart I-3... And The Probability Of Euro Break-Up The premium on Italian BTP yields exists as a compensation for the expected redenomination loss in the tail-event of euro breakup. Assuming this currency depreciation would neutralize Italy's current 25% under-competitiveness versus Germany, we can infer that the 125 bps yield premium on 5-year BTPs is pricing a 5% annual probability of euro breakup (because 125 bps = 25% loss times 5% probability). The probability should account for an Italian election that is due within the next year, and Italian public support for the euro hovering at an unconvincing majority of around 55%. In this context, the probability should be somewhat elevated, though not alarming. So a 5% annual probability of euro breakup through the next five years seems reasonable within its post-crisis 2%-20% range. On this basis, the Italian-Germany yield spread is not distorted (Chart I-4). Instead, the real anomaly is the Spain-France (5-year) yield spread which stands at 50 bps (Chart I-5). There is now no difference in competitiveness between Spain and France, so there should be no redenomination premium on Spanish Bonos over French OATs, irrespective of the probability of euro break up. Stay structurally overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-4The Italy-Germany Yield Spread At 150 Bps Is Fair Chart I-5The Spain-France Yield Spread At 50 Bps Is Too High The U.S.-Euro Area Bond Yield Spread Is Distorted: Too High If bond price discovery were based solely on economic fundamentals, the U.S.-euro area yield spread would not be at a multi-decade extreme today. Such an extreme spread exists because the difference between Fed and ECB policy is much more polarized than is justified by the economic fundamentals. In this sense, the relative pricing is distorted. Consider the hard data. The percentages of the working age population in employment are at the same respective pre-crisis highs in both economies; the difference in wage inflation is closing; and the gap between core inflation in the U.S. and euro area has narrowed very sharply to just 0.6%. Indeed, excluding the cost of shelter - which is not represented in the euro area CPI - core inflation in the U.S. is now lower than in the euro area. Agreed, Fed policy should be tighter than ECB policy. But the expected difference should not be at a multi-decade extreme. Given the self-proclaimed 'data-dependency' of both the Fed and the ECB, the polarization of monetary policy expectations (Chart I-6) has to converge to the rapidly narrowing gap in the hard economic data, one way or another (Chart I-7). Chart I-6The U.S.-Euro Area Yield ##br##Spread Is Too High ... Chart I-7... And Will Gravitate To The Narrowing ##br##Gap In The Economic Data I conclude that: the U.S.-euro area (and U.S.-Germany) yield spread can close much further; euro/dollar can rise structurally; and the market neutral equity pair-trade long euro area Financials/short U.S. Financials can continue to outperform. The caveat is that these positions are just one big correlated trade (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Expected Monetary Policy Difference ##br##Is Driving The U.S.-Germany Yield Spread ... Chart I-9... And Therefore The Relative ##br##Performance Of Financials The Equity Risk Premium Is Distorted: Too Low Equity market behaviour is starkly asymmetric; market ascents tend to be gentle and drawn out, while descents tend to be violent and abrupt. By contrast, bond market behaviour is more symmetric; both upward and downward moves can be gentle or violent. The upshot is that when the equity market is ascending, its observed volatility declines. And the longer and more established the ascent becomes, the lower the observed volatility goes, both in absolute terms and relative to bonds. Crucially, this is just an observation of the inherent behaviour of equities: a low observed volatility simply tells us that equity ascents are gentle and drawn out (Chart I-10); it does not tell us that equity risk has diminished. Chart I-10Low Volatility Just Tells Us That Equity Ascents Are Gentle And Drawn Out. ##br##It Does Not Tell Us That Equity Risk Has Diminished! Unfortunately, the decline in the observed volatility may create the illusion that equity risk has diminished. In response, investors might demand a smaller (or no) equity risk premium (ERP) - the excess prospective long-term return over bonds - because they have falsely concluded that the risk of a large intermediate loss is vanishing. In turn, the shrinking ERP and lower required return justifies an even higher price today, allowing the market to continue its gentle ascent. So observed volatility falls even further, and the process feeds on itself in a self-reinforcing spiral. Readers might recognise this as the setup of the Minsky hypothesis in which the illusion of systemic stability breeds systemic instability and an eventual tipping point - a so-called 'Minsky Moment'. The Minsky hypothesis is an explanation for the boom bust cycle in the economy. It proposes that a credit boom initially generates strong and steady growth with low observed volatility. But the associated hubris - "no more boom and bust" - eventually encourages reckless lending and thereby sows the seeds of its destruction. When the misallocated loans cannot be repaid, the inevitable nemesis arrives. Likewise, in the case of the equity market, today's low observed volatility is absolutely not a reason for hubris. Yet as demonstrated in Markets Suspended In Disbelief,3 the low observed volatility has seduced investors into accepting a wafer-thin ERP. Today's low observed volatility is at the lower end of a range that has existed for at least 50 years (Chart of the Week). We have been here many times before. In each case, the low observed volatility did not last. And when it rose, so too did the ERP. As supporting evidence, observe that the 130-day (6-month) fractal dimension of the Eurostoxx600 is suggesting that the current uptrend is reaching its technical limit (Chart I-11). As a reminder, when an investment's fractal dimension approaches its natural lower bound, it signals that excessive trend following and groupthink have reached a natural point of instability. At which point the established trend is likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. Chart I-11The Current Uptrend In The Eurostoxx600 ##br##Is Reaching Its Technical Limit Before making a large absolute commitment to the equity asset class on a 6-12 month or longer horizon, I would first like to see both of these trustworthy signals stop flashing red. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The capital key refers to the proportion of the ECB's capital owned by each of the euro area member states, and it is broadly pro-rata to the member state's GDP. 2 German GDP is 2 times the size of Italian GDP, but the stock of German sovereign debt is only 1.1 times the size of Italian sovereign debt. 3 Published on April 13 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The 65-day fractal dimension of nickel versus tin is approaching a level which has previously signaled an imminent trend-reversal. Go long nickel/short tin as this week's trade. Chart I-12 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Feature EM risk assets refuse to sell off - regardless of new information and developments that historically would have caused these markets to tumble. Indeed, political turmoil and changes in Brazil and South Africa - two high-beta EM markets - have so far had limited impact on flows and market dynamics. Moreover, while our Reflation Confirming Indicator has rolled over, EM share prices have not reacted at all (Chart I-1). EM stocks have also decoupled with the equal-weighted average of global mining and energy equity indexes (Chart I-2). Chart 1Reflation Confirming Indicator And ##br##EM Stocks Chart 2Commodities Share Prices And ##br##EM Equities: Unsustainable Divergence We do not subscribe to the thesis that EM assets have permanently decoupled from both commodities and their domestic credit cycles, and that tried and tested indicators no longer work. Technology and social media share prices have been instrumental to this latest decoupling, as we wrote in last week's report.1 This group of stocks is in a full-blown mania phase, and it is hard to know when this will end. Yet, exponential price moves always occur at the end of a bull market, and are typically followed by bear markets. As we elaborated in last week's report, the investment call on social media and internet stocks is a bottom-up - not macro - call. Top-down analysis can add some value on the semiconductor cycle, and we suggested last week that it is likely topping out. This week new data releases support the thesis that Asian/global trade in general and the semiconductor cycle in particular are already decelerating. Korean exports data for the first 20 days of May, Japanese preliminary manufacturing PMI for May, and Taiwanese manufacturing output volume growth for April have all decelerated (Chart I-3). Finally, one technical piece of evidence that this rally is late is relative weakness in the equal-weighted MSCI equity indexes. In the EM space, the equally-weighted individual stock index has fared poorly against the EM market cap-weighted index since May 2016 (Chart I-4, top panel). In the U.S., the same measure of market breadth has deteriorated since December 2016 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart 3Asia's Manufacturing Growth ##br##Is Already Decelerating Chart 4The EM And U.S. Equity Rally ##br##Has Been Driven By Large-Cap Stocks Bottom Line: EM financial markets are in the midst of irrational exuberance. The rally is late, but it is impossible to time the top. The forthcoming selloff will be large and protracted. Beware Of China's Budding Growth Slump Interest rates have risen in China sufficiently enough to cause a major growth slowdown in the mainland economy (Chart I-5). Liquidity tightening amid a lingering credit bubble could not be a more dangerous combination. In this context, financial markets are extremely complacent on EM/China plays. China's liquidity tightening continues, and is bound to create a decisive growth relapse in the months ahead, as well as dampen exports in countries that sell to China (Chart I-6). Chart 5China Growth To Slump Chart 6Exports To China To Slump Not only is the People's Bank of China (PBoC) guiding interest rates higher, but there is an ongoing regulatory crackdown on the financial system. Regulators are forcing banks to bring Wealth Management Products (WMPs) and other off-balance-sheet items onto their balance sheets. As a result, banks' capital adequacy and risk matrixes will deteriorate, and they will be forced to slow down credit creation. Chart 7EM Share Prices Ex. Tech Have Not Broken Out Remarkably, policymakers are determined to get things under control. According to The Wall Street Journal,2 key policymakers have issued strongly worded statements. "Strong medicine must be prescribed," said Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CRBC), according to people familiar with the matter. "If the banking industry gets into a mess," he added, "I will resign." He was appointed as the head of the CRBC last October, and likely has a mandate from the President to tackle speculative excesses in the financial system. In its first quarter Monetary Policy Implementation Report,3 the PBoC repeatedly used the phrase "preventing bubbles." Besides, in his statements, the chairman of the PBoC has frequently emphasized the need to normalize credit growth and curb speculative activities. The former head of the insurance regulator, who has been "accommodating" and "tolerant" of risky activities by insurance companies, was jailed last fall for corruption. These are strong indications confirming that policymakers are determined to curb speculative financial activities. Provided how entrenched and large various speculative financial schemes and the credit bubble have become in China, it will be impossible to tackle speculative excesses without a slowdown in overall credit growth and associated harm to the real economy. This is not to say that policymakers are tightening with intentions to cause a growth collapse. Policymakers in all countries always tighten to cap inflation or credit excesses or normalize interest rates - i.e., they never tighten to cause a major shock to the real economy. This applies to Chinese policymakers at the moment, especially ahead of the party Congress later this year. That said, when the existing imbalances in the economy or financial system are sufficiently large, even minor tightening can cause a financial accident or growth relapse. It is not within policymakers' powers to predict or prevent it. They may alter their policy after the fact, but markets will sell off considerably beforehand. We do not know exactly how financial dynamics in China will evolve in the months ahead, but we are certain that the market consensus is too complacent and that EM asset prices are at major risk. Bottom Line: It is impossible to predict financial accidents (stress among specific institutions) but we are certain that China's credit growth and, consequently, capital spending are bound to slow considerably in the coming months. This bodes ill for producers of commodities and industrial goods both within and outside China. Accordingly, EM risk assets will suffer the most. As a final note, EM ex-technology share prices have not yet broken out and we do expect them to relapse from the current levels (Chart I-7). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?," dated May 17, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Lingling Wei and Chao Deng, "China's War on Debt Causes Stocks to Drop, Bond Yields to Shoot Up and Defaults to Rise," May 5, 2017, The Wall Street Journal. 3 Please refer to http://www.pbc.gov.cn/zhengcehuobisi/125207/125227/125957/3307990/3307409/index.html (In Chinese only). Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights U.S. fiscal stimulus will be priced back into markets; Northeast Asia is consumed with domestic politics for now; China's financial crackdown raises risks, but so far looks contained; South Korea's relief rally will lead to buyer's remorse; Japan's constitutional reforms portend more reflation. Feature The market has lost faith in U.S. fiscal stimulus. The bond market has given back all of the expectations of faster growth and higher inflation (Chart 1). Hopes of populist, budget-busting tax cuts appear to have been dashed by the Putin-gate scandal and alleged White House obstruction of justice. As a result, the DXY has fallen to pre-election levels, while the Goldman Sachs high tax-rate basket of equities has fallen to its lowest level relative to the S&P 500 since February 2016 (Chart 2). We continue to believe that tax reform, or just tax cuts, will happen this year or early next year and that the market will have to re-price fiscal stimulus and budget profligacy at some point this year.1 As such, we are not ready to close our tactical recommendations of going long the high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 (down 1.62% since April 5) or playing the 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener (down 11.4 bps since November 1). Republicans in Congress will push through tax reforms or cuts for the sake of remaining competitive in the upcoming midterm elections. And we doubt their commitment to budget discipline. That said, it is not clear that the equity market needs tax reforms to continue its upward trajectory. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% in the second quarter while the NY Fed's Nowcast is forecasting 2.3%. BCA U.S. Equity Strategy's earnings model continues to predict continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year both in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 3).2 In fact, if expectations of stimulus in the U.S. fully dissipate, the USD will take a breather - giving global stocks a boost - and the Fed will be able to take it easy on tightening U.S. rates, easing global monetary conditions. Chart 1Market No Longer##br## Believes In Trump Stimulus... Chart 2...Or Trump ##br##Tax Cuts Chart 3Corporate Profit ##br##Outlook Still Strong Perhaps far more important for global and U.S. risk assets is global growth. And the fulcrum of global growth has been China's economic performance. As the only country willing to run pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy, China has had a disproportionate impact on global growth since 2008. As such, we turn this week to the geopolitics and politics of Northeast Asia. China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go? Chinese financial policy tightening caught the market by surprise this year. The running assumption was that policy would be fully accommodative in order to ensure stability ahead of the all-important nineteenth National Party Congress in October or November.3 However, it is possible that the assumption is flawed. First, as we have pointed out in the past, China does not have a record of proactive economic stimulus ahead of party congresses (Chart 4). Second, President Xi Jinping may be far more secure in his position than is understood. Chart 4Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Mid-Term Party Congresses In China The crackdown on the financial sector in recent months suggests that Xi's administration has a greater appetite for risk ahead of the party congress than is generally believed: The administration is continuing to tamp down on the property sector. The PBoC has drained liquidity and allowed interbank rates to rise (Chart 5). The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) has launched inspections and new regulations on wealth management products and the shadow lending sector. The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) has imposed new restrictions, including preventing insurers from selling new policies. One can make a good case that these measures will be limited so as not to cause excessive disruption in the financial system. All of the key Communist Party statements, from Premier Li Keqiang's recent comments to those made by the economic leadership in December, at the beginning of this tightening cycle, have emphasized that stability remains the priority.4 The PBoC's measures have been marginal; other measures have mostly to do with supervision. Notable personnel changes affecting the top economic and financial government positions fall under preparations for the party congress and do not necessarily suggest a new ambitious policy initiative is under way.5 Moreover, the government has already stepped back a bit in the face of the liquidity squeeze. One of the signs of the PBoC's tighter stance was its discontinuation of its Medium-Term Lending Facility in January, but this has since been reinstated.6 And throughout May the PBoC has injected increasing amounts of liquidity into the interbank system, marking an apparent tactical shift (Chart 6). Furthermore, government spending is already growing again after a brief contraction. Chart 5People's Bank Tightens Marginally... Chart 6...But Keeps Interbank Rates On A Leash In light of these decisions, it seems policy tightening is intended not to be stringent but merely to keep the financial sector - especially the shadow banking sector - in check during a year in which the assumption is that regulators' hands are tied. After all, an unchecked expansion of leverage throughout the year could interfere with the stability imperative. There are two major risks to this view. First, there is the danger of unintended consequences: China is overleveraged: The fundamental problem for China is that there is too much leverage in the system and there has not been a bout of deleveraging for several years (Chart 7). Much of the leverage is off-balance sheet as a result of the rapid growth in shadow lending. There are complex and opaque webs of counterparty risk. When authorities crack down, they cannot be certain that their actions will not spiral out of control. Recently, heightened scrutiny of "mutual guarantees," a type of shadow lending between corporations, led to the default of a company in Shandong that prompted a local government bailout, and more such credit events have occured.7 Policymakers are human: It is a fallacy to assume that Chinese policymakers are omnipotent. The mishaps of 2015-16 put a point on this. A state-backed newspaper has recently reiterated that its "deleveraging" campaign is not finished - the government could accidentally push too far.8 The rise in bond yields has already inverted the yield curve, causing the five-year bond yield to rise higher than the ten-year (Chart 8). This is a red flag and warrants caution.9 Quick fixes have negative side-effects: China escaped the last round of financial jitters, in 2015-16, by using its time-tried technique of credit and fiscal spending to boost the property market and build infrastructure, while imposing draconian capital controls. The growth rebound came at the expense of more debt, less economic rebalancing, and less financial openness. Chart 7China Is Massively Overleveraged Chart 8China's Yield Curve Has Inverted Second, there is the risk that Xi Jinping's calculus ahead of the party congress is not knowable. It may well be the case that Xi's position in the party is strengthened by a disruptive financial crackdown. The party congress is already under way: The party congress runs all year; it is not merely a one-off event this fall. Senior party officials will come up with a list of candidates for promotion in June or July. Then the PSC and former PSC members will likely meet behind the scenes to hash out their final list, which the Central Committee will ratify in the fall. If financial jitters were supposed to be strictly avoided for the party congress, then the current crackdown would never have begun. The outcomes are uncertain: The negotiations for the Politburo and PSC are not a foregone conclusion no matter how well positioned Xi appears to be as the "core" of the Communist Party. A simple assessment of the current Politburo suggests that the factions are evenly balanced when it comes to the current Politburo members capable of filling the five positions on the new PSC. Two of these positions should go to President Xi's and Premier Li Keqiang's successors, likely to be of opposing factions, while there will probably be three remaining slots that will have to be divvied up among an equal number of candidates from the two main factions (Table 1). Xi may still need to win some battles for influence behind the scenes in order to stack the Central Committee, Politburo, and PSC with his people for 2017 and beyond.10 His anti-corruption campaign has slowed down but is not over (Chart 9). This is all the more imperative for him since his retirement could be rattled by future enemies, given that he has removed the longstanding impunity of former PSC members. Table 1Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced Despite these risks, we still tend to think that for China, as for the world, political risks are overstated in 2017 and understated in 2018.11 If Xi deliberately courts instability this year, as opposed to merely staying vigilant over the financial sector, then it will mark a major break from the norms of Chinese politics. The true risk to China's stability - aside from the unintended consequences discussed above - arises after the party congress, when Xi's political capital is replenished and he can attempt to reboot his policy agenda. Previous presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both launched reform pushes after their midterm congresses in 2007 and 1997, respectively. Hu's reform drive was cut short by the global financial crisis, while Jiang's was large-scale and disruptive and paved the way for a decade of higher potential GDP. Having consolidated power in the party, bureaucracy, and military, and tightened controls over the media, Xi Jinping will be in a position in 2018 to launch sweeping reforms should he choose to do so. Presumably these reforms would follow along the lines of those he outlined in the Third Plenum of the Eighteenth Central Committee back in 2013 - they would be pro-market reforms focused on raising productivity by transferring more wealth to households and SMEs at the expense of state-owned enterprises and local governments.12 To illustrate the process of structural reform, we have often used the notion of the "J-Curve" in Diagram 1. This shows that painful reforms deplete political capital, creating a "danger zone" for political leaders in which they lose popularity as economic pain hurts the public. Xi's work over the past five years to fight corruption and rebuild the party's public image have given him the ability to start the J-Curve process from a higher point than otherwise would have been the case. He will start at point D in the diagram, instead of point A, which means that the low point E may not embroil him as deeply in the danger zone of serious political instability as point B. Chart 9Embers Still Burning In ##br##Anti-Corruption Campaign Diagram 1The J-curve Of##br## Structural Reform But there is still no guarantee that he intends to expend his political capital in this way. The current round of financial tightening could be preliminaries for bigger moves next year - or it could be just another mini-cycle in the ongoing process of "managing" China's massive leverage. If China decides to execute a major deleveraging campaign, either now or next year, it will have a negative effect on global commodity demand (particularly base metals), on commodity exporters, on emerging markets in general, and ultimately on global growth. It would be beneficial for Chinese growth in the long run but negative in the short run, and in terms of Chinese domestic risk assets would open up opportunities for investors to favor "new (innovative) China" versus "old (industrial) China." Bottom Line: We remain long Chinese equities versus Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities for now, but are wary of any sign of doubling down on policy tightening in the face of more frequent and intense credit events. That would indicate that the Chinese leadership has a higher risk appetite than anyone expects and may be willing to induce serious financial disruption before the party congress. Korea: Drunk On Moonshine The Korean election is over and with it much of the heightened uncertainty that accompanied the impeachment and removal from office of President Park Geun-hye over the past year. The new president, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party, performed right around the polled expectations at 41% of the vote (Table 2). His competitor on the right wing, Hong Jun-pyo, outperformed expectations, though he still trailed well behind at 24%, giving Moon a large margin of victory by Korean standards that will help provide him with political capital (Chart 10). Table 2South Korean Presidential Election Results Chart 10Moon Will Have A Honeymoon Moon's election will bring relief to markets on both the domestic and geopolitical front. On the domestic front, he is proposing a series of policies that will cumulatively boost fiscal thrust and growth. On the geopolitical front, he will revive the "Sunshine Policy" (now "Moonshine Policy") of engagement with North Korea, reducing the appearance that the peninsula is slipping into war.13 The power vacuum in South Korea was a key driver of North Korea's belligerence in 2016, as the lead-up to South Korean elections has been in the past (Chart 11). South Korean presidents typically enjoy a substantial honeymoon period in which they are able to drive policy. The fact that the election occurred seven months early, as a result of the impeachment, gives Moon a notable boost to this period - he has seven months longer than he would have had before he faces any potential check from voters in the 2020 legislative elections. That is not to say that Moon has free rein. Ahn Cheol-soo's People's Party holds 40 seats in the National Assembly and is therefore in a "kingmaker" position - able to provide either the ruling Democratic Party or the fractured right-wing opposition with a majority of seats (Diagram 2). The People's Party is already criticizing Moon's call for increasing government spending by around 0.7% of GDP to fulfill his campaign pledges. True, the People's Party leans to the left and rose to power as a result of the median voter's shift to the left in the 2016's legislative elections. This may limit its ability to obstruct Moon's agenda at first. Nevertheless, it poses a substantial constraint on Moon's agenda through 2020. Chart 11Bull Market For##br## North Korean Threats Diagram 2Center-Left People's Party##br## Is The Korean Kingmaker Markets are relieved but not ebullient. The impeachment rally is over and eventually markets will realize that while Moon's agenda is pro-growth, it is not necessarily pro-corporate profits (Chart 12). He is promising to introduce a higher minimum wage, to convert temporary labor contracts into permanent ones, to increase social spending, and to toughen up labor and environmental regulation (Table 3). He has also appointed the so-called "chaebol sniper" as his point man in leading the reform of the country's chaebol industrial giants. On one hand, South Korea definitely needs corporate governance reform; on the other, the process will add uncertainty and Moon's approach may not be market-positive.14 Chart 12Relief Rally Likely To Disappoint Table 3South Korean President's Campaign Proposals To get an indication of what kind of impact Moon's economic agenda may have, it is helpful to compare that of his mentor, Roh Moo-hyun, president from 2002-7. Roh gave a boost to consumption, both government and private, and saw a relative drop off in fixed capital accumulation, which fits with the broad agenda of supporting workers and households and removing privileges for Korea's traditional export-oriented industrial complex (Chart 13). Roh proved very beneficial for the financial sector, wholesale and retail trade, and health and social work. Education and public administration received some support but were flat overall (Chart 14 A & B). If Moon follows in Roh's footsteps, he will be beneficial for the domestic-oriented economy. Chart 13South Korea's Left Wing##br## Boosts Domestic Consumption Chart 14ASouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (I) Chart 14BSouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (II) Abroad, the Moonshine Policy is likely to have some success, at least in the medium term. The Trump administration is pursuing a strategy comparable to the U.S.'s nuclear negotiations with Iran from 2011-15, in which it tries to rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on the rogue state with the purpose of entering into a new round of negotiations that will actually generate concrete results. The "arc of diplomacy" will take time to get going and could last several years - it is essentially a last-ditch effort to convince North Korea to pause its nuclear and missile advances. The tail risk of conflict on the Korean peninsula will be moved out to the end of this effort, perhaps around the end of Trump's term.15 Meanwhile, Moon is already patching up trade relations with China, according to reports, after the latter imposed sanctions on Korea for deploying the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 15). He will also seek joint infrastructure projects with China and Russia to connect the peninsula. China has a vested interest in Moon's success because it is attempting to demonstrate to the Trump administration that it is cooperating on North Korean security. Chart 15China Likely To Ease##br## Sanctions On South Korea Chart 16South Korean Inflation##br## And Credit Impulse Weak The geopolitical risk to markets is, first, that North Korea miscalculates the threshold of other nations' patience, continues with provocations, and eventually causes an incident that derails the new negotiations. This is possible given the North's record of belligerent acts and the fact that both the Trump administration and the Abe administration could cut diplomacy short in the face of a truly disruptive provocation for domestic political reasons. Second, there is a risk that Trump decides to escalate North Korean tensions again, whether to distract from domestic scandals or to reinforce the military deterrent in the event that China and South Korea appear to be giving North Korea a free pass in another round of useless talks. If Moon pursues a unilateral détente with North Korea, without adequate coordination with the U.S., and pushes for the removal of THAAD missiles, then the U.S. and South Korea are headed for a period of higher-than-normal alliance tensions that could become market-relevant.16 Bottom Line: We remain short KRW/THB. Core inflation and domestic demand remain weak in Korea, which reinforces the central bank's recent decision to stick to an accommodative monetary policy. Credit growth is cyclically weak, which reinforces the fact that rate cuts are still on the table (including the possibility of a surprise rate cut like in mid-2016) (Chart 16). Finally, the KRW has been relatively strong compared to the currencies of Korea's competitors (Chart 17). Chart 17South Korean Won Has Outpaced The Yuan And Yen In terms of equities, the top six chaebol have come under scrutiny, but Samsung has rallied despite lying at the center of the corruption scandal. The others have not performed well amid the economic slowdown. We see no opportunity at present to short the chaebol in relation to the broader market. Broadly, however, Moon's policies will add burdens to large internationally competitive industrials while boosting small and medium-sized enterprises. We also remain short the Korean ten-year government bond versus the two-year (see Chart 12, panel three, above). Moon's policy bent will subtract from a 1% budget surplus (2016) and worsen the long-term trajectory of the country's relatively low public debt (39% of GDP). Insofar as his foreign policy succeeds, it entails a larger future debt burden as a result of efforts to integrate with North Korea, which is relevant to long-term bonds well before reunification appears anywhere on the horizon. At bottom, we are structurally bearish South Korea because of rising headwinds both to U.S.-China relations and to the broader globalization process that has benefited South Korea so much in the recent past. Japan: Is Militarism The Final Act Of Abenomics? Japan has reached peak political capital under Shinzo Abe. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, with its New Komeito coalition partner, continues to play in a totally different league from its competitors - there is no political alternative at the moment (Chart 18). The ruling party has a de facto two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Diet. Abe himself is more popular than any recent prime minister, and has retained that popularity over a longer period of time (Chart 19). He has secured permission from his party to stay on as its president until 2021, though he faces general elections in December 2018 to stay on as prime minister. Chart 18Japan: Liberal Democrats Still Supreme Chart 19Shinzo Abe Remains The Man Of The Hour Political capital is a fleeting thing, so Abe must use it or lose it. This is why we have insisted that he would press forward rapidly with attempts to revise Japan's constitution, his ultimate policy goal, which he has now confirmed he will do. His proposed deadline is July 2020 for the new provisions coming into force.17 Constitutional revision is not only about enshrining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) so as to normalize the country's defense policy. It is also about Japan becoming an independent nation again, capable of forging its own destiny outside of the one foreseen by the American framers of the post-WWII constitution. Though Abe has specific constitutional aims, any change to the constitution will demonstrate that change is possible and break a taboo, advancing Abe's broader goal of nudging the Japanese public toward active rather than passive policies.18 Hence Japanese politics are about to heat up in a big way. Abe has already done a trial run in his passage of a new national security law in September 2015. This law allowed the government to reinterpret the constitution so as to achieve many of his chief military-strategic aims (e.g. allowing the JSDF to come to the aid of allies in "collective self-defense"). Over the course of that year, Abe's popularity flagged, as public opinion punished him for shifting attention away from the economic reflation agenda that got him elected so as to focus on his more controversial, hawkish security agenda (Chart 20). Nevertheless, Abe stuck to the security agenda, in the face of some of the largest protests in Japan's post-Occupation history, and managed to shift back to the economy in time to notch another big victory in the upper house elections of 2016. We expect a similar process to unfold this time, though with bigger stakes and far less of a chance that Abe can "pivot" again. Under no circumstances do we see him reversing the constitutional drive now that he has the rare gift of supermajorities in the Diet; rather, he is going to spend his political capital. After all, there is no telling what could happen in the 2018 election. What are the market implications of this agenda? There may be some hiccups in consumer and business sentiment as a result of the rise in activism, political opposition, and controversy that is already beginning and will intensify as the process gets under way. Abe will be accused of putting the economy on the backburner. Abenomics is already of questionable success (Chart 21) and it will come under greater criticism as Abe shifts attention elsewhere, especially if global headwinds gain strength. Chart 20Abe Loses Support When He Talks##br## Security Instead Of Economy Chart 21Abenomics: ##br##Progress Is Gradual However, we recommend investors fade this narrative and buy Japan. Abe's constitutional changes must receive a simple majority in a nationwide popular referendum in order to pass - and Abe does not clearly have what he needs at the moment (Chart 22). This means that he cannot, in reality, afford to put Abenomics on the back burner, but instead must err on the side of monetary dovishness, fiscal stimulus, and reflation in order to win support for the non-economic agenda. There has been virtually no talk of fiscal stimulus this year, yet the policy setting is conducive to increasing spending as necessary. The Bank of Japan has explicitly embraced a monetary regime designed to allow for greater "coordination" with fiscal policy (Chart 23).19 There is no reason whatsoever to believe Abe is backing away from this stance. (Incidentally, the next consumption tax hike is not slated until October 2019, and could be delayed again.) Geopolitics are also fairly supportive of the Abe administration. First, the Korean situation is currently alarming enough to help justify the constitutional changes yet not alarming enough to provoke outright conflict. Abe is also making headway toward a historic improvement of relations with Russia, allowing Japan's military to pivot from the north to the south and west (i.e. China and North Korea). The chief risk for Abe is if North Korea surprises on the dovish side and new international diplomatic efforts appear so fruitful as to reduce domestic support for remilitarization. China, South Korea, and possibly North Korea will encourage the latter dynamic, while drumming up global criticism of Japan for warmongering. Meanwhile Japan will try to remind the domestic public and the U.S. that North Korea remains a clear and present danger and tends to take advantage of negotiations. Given the relatively positive geopolitical backdrop for Abe, the biggest risk to his agenda is an exogenous economic shock. Even then, if that shock stems from China and causes Beijing to rattle-sabers as a domestic distraction, then it will benefit Abe's remilitarization agenda. What would hurt Abe is if global growth sags but China and North Korea lay low. It is too soon to say that they will do this, but it is unlikely. Trump is also a wild card whose threats of "tough" policy toward China and North Korea may reemerge in 2018, in time to help Japan make constitutional changes that the U.S. generally supports. Bottom Line: Go long Japan. While there is no correlation between Japan's defense-exposed equity sector performance and the current government's remilitarization efforts, there is a clear case to be made that nominal GDP and defense spending will both be going up as a result of constitutional and economic policies (Chart 24). Abe will double down on reflation for at least as long as is necessary to maintain popular approval of his government ahead of a historic constitutional referendum. Chart 22Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 23Japanese Reflation ##br##Will Continue Chart 24Expect Higher Nominal##br## Growth And Defense Spending Housekeeping: Play Pound Strength Through USD, Not EUR We are closing our short EUR/GBP position, open since January 25, for a loss of 1.77%. This trade has largely been flat. We put it on as a way to articulate our view that Brexit political risks are overstated and that the pound bottomed on January 16. The political call was right, but the pound has largely moved sideways versus the euro since then. We maintain our short USD/GBP, which is up 4.63% since March 29, as a way to articulate the same view that Brexit (and the upcoming U.K. elections) are not a risk. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump Thumps The Markets," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The party congress, which occurs every five years and marks the "midterm" of President Xi Jinping's administration, will see a sweeping rotation of Communist Party officials, including on the Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). 4 Please see "China able to keep its financial markets stable, Premier Li says," Reuters, May 14, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. For the December meeting, see "China's monetary policy to be prudent, neutral in 2017," Xinhua, December 16, 2016, available at www.chinadaily.com. 5 Finance Minister Xiao Jie, Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, NDRC Chairman He Lifeng, and China Banking Regulatory Commission Chairman Guo Shuqing have all recently been appointed, but they replaced leaders due to retire as part of the party congress reshuffle. Only the new China Insurance Regulatory Commission Chairman Xiang Junbo and the new Director o f the National Bureau of Statistics Wang Baoan were replaced for reasons other than retirement, having been stung by the anti-corruption campaign. By March 2018 the world should have a better sense of Xi's economic and financial "team" for 2018-22. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Zouping government, in Shandong, intervened into the case of Qixing aluminum company's insolvency in order to transfer control to Xiwang, a corn oil and steel producer that had given a mutual guarantee to Qixing. The Zouping authorities arrested the son of Qixing's chairman to force the transfer. Please see "Bond Buyers Blacklist Some Chinese Provinces After Run Of Defaults," Bloomberg, April 26, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see "China Deleveraging To Continue As Goals Not Yet Achieved: State Paper," Reuters, May 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Signs Of An EM/China Growth Reversal," dated April 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Signal From Commodities," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Xi may yet go after another big "tiger," Zeng Qinghong, the right-hand man of former President Jiang Zemin. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated in 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Tracking The Reform Progress," dated October 22, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Moonshine Policy" is a phrase we regrettably did not coin, but we discussed its coming in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "What About Emerging Markets?" dated May 3, 2017, and "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Moon has nominated Kim Sang-jo, a professor of economics at Hansung University in Seoul, to head his Fair Trade Commission. Kim is a long-time advocate for shareholders against the family-controlled chaebol and led a prominent law suit against Samsung. Past efforts at reforming the chaebol led by Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun focused on improving balance sheets, protecting minority shareholders' rights, limiting the total amount of investment, and improving corporate management and accountability. It remains to be seen how Moon (and Kim Sang-jo, assuming his nomination is confirmed) will proceed, but the effort will bring domestic challenges to the top industrial conglomerates' operating environment at least initially. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 South Korea's special envoy Hong Seok-hyun claims that Trump told him at the White House that he will work closely with Moon and is willing to try engagement with Pyongyang, conditions permitting, though he is not interested in talks for the sake of talks. This fits with our view that the U.S. saber-rattling this year was designed to make the military option more credible before pursuing a new round of diplomacy. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, and Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 So, for instance, if it should happen that, over the course of the coming debates, Abe is forced to drop his proposed revisions to the pacifist Article 9, he may still achieve changes to the amendment-making procedure in Article 96. The latter would be even more important for Japan's future, since it would make it easier for Japan to change the constitution for whatever reason in the coming decades. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights U.S. Politics: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Duration Checklists: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Europe: Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Feature The Economy Trumps Politics Chart of the WeekHas Anything Really Changed? A whiff of panic swept across global financial markets last week, as the political risk bugaboo came back with a vengeance. In the U.S., the deepening morass surrounding President Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director Comey, and the potential links to the ongoing investigation of the White House's ties to Russia, raised concerns that Trump's ambitious pro-growth policy agenda would never make it out of Congress. Even this year's darling in the Emerging Markets, Brazil, suffered a huge financial rout after news broke of corruption allegations against the current president. Amid growing talk of a potential impeachment of Trump, the market action was a classic risk-off move, with equity markets falling, the VIX finally waking from its slumber and safe-haven assets like gold, U.S. Treasuries and the Japanese yen rallying. The euro climbed to new 2017 highs versus the U.S. dollar, without any changes in expectations about potential policy moves from the European Central Bank (ECB), as the market knocked down the probability of a June Fed rate hike (Chart of the Week). Some creative commentators called these market moves "the Trump fade" - the beginnings of a reversal of the so-called "Trump trade" that has sent U.S. equity prices and bond yields higher since the U.S. election on expectations of a large U.S. fiscal stimulus. We remain skeptical, however, that expectations of tax cuts and increased government spending have been the main drivers of the post-election boost in U.S. stock prices and Treasury yields, as the current cyclical upturn in global growth was already underway before Trump's election victory. Our colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy service note that, despite Trump's terrible overall approval ratings (Chart 2), his support among his Republican voters remains strong (Chart 3). Thus, an impeachment is only likely if the Republicans were to lose control of the House of Representatives in next year's U.S. midterm elections. Fear of that outcome should motivate the GOP to try and push through tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the 2018 midterms, in order to present a positive economic message to voters.1 Unless the evidence against Trump becomes so damning that even the Republicans in Congress have to focus on impeachment instead of policy, investors should ride out any market volatility associated with worries that the Trump economic agenda is at risk. Chart 2Trump's Support Abysmal Chart 3GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Even without a boost to growth from D.C., however, we continue to expect the U.S. economy to grow above 2.5% in 2017. This above-trend pace will keep the Fed in play for at least two additional rate hikes before year-end, as it would give policymakers confidence that U.S. inflation expectations would return back the Fed's 2% target. In addition, as we discuss in the next section, the cyclical upturn in the Euro Area economy is showing no signs of cooling off, which will put more pressure on the ECB to begin preparing the markets for an eventual tapering of its asset purchases. The recent decline in bond yields is unlikely to persist much longer. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Checking In On Our Duration Checklists In a Special Report published back in February, we introduced a list of indicators to follow to assess the likely direction of U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields.2 We called these our "Duration Checklists", incorporating data on economic growth, inflation, investor risk aversion and market technicals to judge whether our bias to maintain a below-benchmark duration stance should be maintained. This week, we provide an update on those Checklists. The current message from the Checklists is that there is reduced upward pressure on bond yields from the overall strength of the global economy than existed four months ago. Domestic forces, however, are still pointing to higher yields in the U.S. and, especially, the Euro Area (Table 1). Specifically: Table 1A More Bond-Bearish Backdrop For Bunds Than USTs Global economic activity indicators have lost some momentum. While the global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still rising, our global LEI diffusion index has fallen sharply and is now below the 50 line, indicating that a more countries now have a falling LEI. In addition, the global ZEW index has drifted a touch lower, global data surprises are no longer positive, and the global credit impulse has ticked downward (Chart 4). Only the rising LEI warrants a "check" in our Checklists (i.e. justifies our current below-benchmark duration stance). U.S. & European domestic economic activity remains in good shape. Consumer and business confidence remains at strong levels on either side of the Atlantic, with corporate profit growth still accelerating (Charts 5 & 6). Only the modest decline in the U.S. manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI) is worthy of an "x" in our U.S. Checklist, although the index remains well above 50 and is not pointing to a more serious deterioration in the U.S. economy. Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Has##BR##Turned Less Bond-Bearish Chart 5U.S. Economic Strength##BR##Still Supports Higher UST Yields Chart 6Euro Area Growth Is##BR##Gaining Upward Momentum Inflation pressures have eased a bit, especially in the U.S. The slowing momentum in global energy prices has taken some of the steam out of headline inflation in both the U.S. and Europe. Wage inflation has eased up a bit in the U.S., even with the labor market running at full employment (Chart 7). Wage growth and core inflation have recently ticked higher in the Euro Area, however, while the unemployment rate there has fallen to within less than a percentage point away from the OECD estimate of the NAIRU (Chart 8).3 The only indicators worthy of a "check" are the unemployment gap in both the U.S. and Euro Area, although we will give a potential "check" (with a question mark) to European wage inflation. If the recent uptick gains additional momentum, the case for the ECB to begin moving to a less accommodative policy stance will be much stronger. Chart 7Inflation Pressures On UST Yields Have Eased Chart 8Core Inflation & Wages Bottoming Out In Europe? There is still a pro-risk bias among global investors. U.S. and Euro Area equity markets are still in bullish trends, trading well above their 200-day moving averages. At the same time, corporate credit spreads remain tight and option-implied equity volatility is very low (even after last week's pop in the U.S. on the Trump drama). All indicators are worthy of a "check", suggesting that easier financial conditions can lead to higher bond yields (Charts 9 & 10). We are, however, giving an "x" to the European Checklist for the deviation of the Stoxx 600 from its moving average, as it is now at the +10% extreme that we defined as being potentially bond-bullish as it could foreshadow a near-term correction of an overheated stock market. Chart 9Still Generally A Risk-Seeking Backdrop In The U.S. Chart 10Strong Risk-Seeking Behavior In Europe Bond markets no longer look technically stretched. The sharp move higher in yields at the end of 2016 left all our indicators of yield momentum at bearish extremes (for bond prices). With bond yields pulling back from 2017 highs, however, the momentum measures all look neutral at the moment and are not an impediment to higher yields (Charts 11 & 12). The same goes for duration positioning in the U.S., with the net longs on 10-year Treasury futures now at the highest level since 2007. All of the technical indicators in our Checklists warrant an "check". Chart 11UST Technicals No##BR##Longer Stretched Chart 12Technicals Are No Impediment##BR##To Higher Yields In Europe Summing it all up, our Duration Checklists show that the majority of indicators are still pointing to higher bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, although not as decisively as when we first published the Checklists in February. There are more "check" on the European side of the ledger, however, suggesting that there is more room for European government bond yields to rise relative to U.S. Treasuries. This would indicate a potential trade opportunity to cut allocations to Europe and raise allocations to the U.S. Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Is Now Too Low The recent decline in U.S. yields, however, has narrowed the U.S. Treasury/German Bund spread to levels that make putting on a tightening trade unattractive on a tactical basis. (Chart 13). The gap between the data surprise indices in the U.S. and Euro Area already reflects the recent soft patch for the U.S. economy (middle panel). That spread in the surprise indices now at historically wide levels, suggesting more potential for Treasury yields to rise if the U.S. data begins to rebound soon, as we expect. Also, the gap between U.S. and Euro Area inflation expectations has narrowed alongside the recent downtick in U.S. core inflation (bottom panel), although we expect the decline in U.S. core inflation to be short-lived given the persistent tightness of the U.S. labor market. Net-net, we would prefer to see a wider Treasury-Bund spread before making switching our country exposure out of Europe and into the U.S. We can, however, listen to the message from our Checklists and reduce our duration exposure in Europe. Specifically, we are cutting our allocations to the longer maturity buckets (5 years out to 30 years) by 50% in our model portfolio for Germany, France and Italy, putting the proceeds into the 1-3 year buckets (see the table on Page 12). This will reduce our overall recommended portfolio duration by just over 1/10th of a year, as well as put an additional bear-steepening curve tilt within our European government allocations. We are comfortable with that bias, given the growing risk that the ECB will soon begin signaling a tapering of asset purchases once the current program expires at the end of the year. Bottom Line: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment", dated May 17 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Upgrade packaged food stocks to overweight. Enough value creation has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Get ready to book profits. Resist the temptation to bottom fish in steel stocks. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues should weigh on steel profits. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods - Upgrade to overweight. S&P Utilities - Downgrade Alert. Table 1 Feature The market waffled last week, but quickly recovered. The upshot is that investors still appear content to look through the circus in Washington, focused instead on the positive reflationary dynamics supporting the corporate sector. Financial conditions have eased considerably ever since the Fed resumed its tightening campaign last December. Equity price gains, narrowing credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar have more than offset the negative impact of the back-up in bond yields. Cheap equity capital also remains easily accessible. While the labor market is tightening, BCA argues that the headline unemployment rate may understate slack given the large number of part-time workers that want to work full-time and prime-age workers that are still out of work. With core inflation surprising to the downside in recent months, there is no urgency for the Fed to slam the brakes. In other words, there is more than enough monetary fuel to sustain the equity overshoot. Easy financial conditions will allow investors to extrapolate the profit recovery (Chart 1), especially since it has been sales driven for the first time in years. It is notable that while consumer price inflation has softened, in aggregate, businesses are not feeling any renewed deflationary pressure. The depreciation in the U.S. dollar has been a critical support for U.S. businesses. Our corporate sector pricing power proxy continues to accelerate (Chart 1), arguing that revenue growth should persist. The combination of muted consumer price inflation yet positive corporate sector inflation is a stock market positive, all else equal. Digging beneath the surface, divergent sector inflation trends are increasingly evident. The commodity-linked energy and materials sectors have lost upward pricing power momentum (Chart 2), courtesy of the cooling in China. Technology sector selling prices are sinking deeper into deflationary territory, albeit the FANG juggernaut pays no attention to sector specific forces. Telecom services pricing power has also taken a header (Chart 2). On the plus side, other defensive sectors, including utilities, are still able to raise prices at a much greater rate than overall inflation. Even the pace of financial sector price hikes is at the top end of its long-term range (Chart 3). Chart 1Sustained Profit Expansion ##br##Requires Easy Financial Conditions Chart 2Some Softness In ##br##Cyclical Pricing Power... Chart 3...But Defensive Selling##br## Prices Are Resilient The upshot is that selectivity remains a critical portfolio input rather than simply tracking the broad S&P 500. These forces should allow the market to continue grinding higher into overshoot territory. The latter means that the market is increasingly vulnerable to minor external shocks. Ergo, we continue to recommend a selective weighting in some 'safe' areas, such as consumer staples, which are undervalued in relative terms and will buffet portfolios should volatility escalate further. This week we are taking advantage of the drubbing in food stocks to augment positions. Packaged Foods: Going Against The Grain After a surge to all-time relative performance highs in mid-2016, the S&P packaged foods index has deflated by roughly 20%. Two key reasons are behind the downdraft: the allure to hold stable cash flow companies has diminished since the November election, and weak industry-specific metrics - in particular pricing power and sales contraction amid private label competition. Despite these negatives, our sense is that enough value destruction has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Relative valuations reflect most of these investor worries. The relative forward P/E ratio has de-rated to below the two-decade average, and our Valuation Indicator (VI) is near one standard deviation below the historical mean. In fact, every time the VI falls to such an undervalued extreme, relative performance stages a sizable comeback (Chart 4). Technical conditions are also washed out. Relative performance momentum has plunged to the lowest level in a decade, and likely fully reflects investor angst. Deeply oversold readings and undervaluation suggest that a full bearish capitulation has occurred, which is contrarily positive. Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Grain price deflation (shown inverted, third panel, Chart 4) suggests that industry input costs are well contained, and will underpin profit margins. It is normal for falling grain prices to coincide with upward revisions to analyst profit estimates (second panel, Chart 4). While industry sales are mired in deflation, there are high odds that top line growth will exit deflation by early 2018. Consumer outlays on food and beverages are brisk, and wholesale food manufacturing prices have recently reaccelerated. Chart 5 shows that industry revenues follow the trend in consumption and pricing power, underscoring that profitability is set to expand anew. True, private label competition and grocery store market share wars have put pressure on industry pricing power. But as long as food manufacturers can keep input costs under control, profit margins should remain wide. A simple industry profit margin gauge (PPI food manufacturing versus PPI crude food) gives us comfort that margins will remain resilient (bottom panel, Chart 5). Importantly, packaged food producers are well positioned to fight back against food retailers' demands for price concessions. Robust consumer outlays on food and beverages are corroborated by real retail sales at food stores, which are bucking the deceleration in overall retail sales (third panel, Chart 6). The hook up in food manufacturing hours worked confirms that industry activity is on the mend, which bodes well for productivity gains. Sell-side analysts have taken notice. Positive earnings revisions will continue to outstrip negative ones. Chart 4Buy Against The Grain Chart 5End Of The Revenue Lull... Chart 6...As Demand Recovers Finally, food and beverage exports have held onto recent double-digit growth gains despite the strong greenback. Now that the U.S. dollar is under some pressure, especially against the euro and emerging market currencies, foreign sales should provide a further relief valve should domestic pricing pressures persist for a little longer than we expect (second panel, Chart 6). In sum, while investors have rushed for the exits in the defensive S&P packaged foods index, a buying opportunity has emerged. Relative valuations have corrected to the lower end of their historic range and already reflect investor profitability worries. Our thesis is that a domestic demand-driven recovery has commenced and strict cost control, along with food commodity deflation, should sustain profit margins. Bottom Line: Start a buy program in the S&P packaged foods index, and boost exposure to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK - MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, MJN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K. Our Utilities Overweight Is Starting To Pay Off Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Importantly, the five factors that drove this decision are starting to play out1, albeit in varying degrees of magnitude. Chart 7 shows that the U.S. economic soft patch has persisted. Hard data have not yet caught up to the surge in 'soft' data, such as sentiment and confidence surveys. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is inversely correlated with the relative share price ratio. Similarly, the ISM manufacturing index has crested. Our analysis shows that forward relative returns are strong after the ISM manufacturing survey hits extremely high levels, given that mean reversion ultimately occurs. The upshot is that utilities relative performance has more upside. The yield curve has also moved favorably for utilities stocks. The 10/2 Treasury curve has flattened since early January, as economic data continue to surprise to the downside, underscoring that the tactical utilities buy signal remains intact. The third reason to augment utilities exposure was the ebbing in inflation expectations. The latter continues unabated (Chart 7). Our recent Special Report highlighted that utilities suffer in times of inflation2. But the opposite is also true: utilities stocks outperform in times of disinflation/deflation. This reflects the stable rate of return regulated utilities enjoy, in addition to the increased appeal of dividend yields and cash flow during times of economic volatility and uncertainty. Finally, natural gas prices are firm. Utilities pricing power moves in lockstep with natural gas prices (middle panel, Chart 8). The latter are the marginal price setter for non-regulated utilities, and the recent price reacceleration could be a positive catalyst (bottom panel, Chart 8). Nevertheless, the utilities share price reaction has been more muted than we had expected, at least so far, perhaps reflecting the ongoing outperformance of stocks vs. bonds, and the weakness in electricity production growth (Chart 9). If the five factors begin to lose momentum, we will recommend booking profits in this tactical overweight position. Chart 7Prepare To Book Profits... Chart 8...When Utilities Turbocharge Chart 9Two Utilities Risks To Monitor Bottom Line: Stick with overweight exposure in the S&P utilities sector for now, but get ready to book profits in the coming weeks. Put utilities on downgrade alert. Rusting Steel Stocks Steel stocks have come full circle. Following the initial euphoria since the Trump election, the relative share price ratio is now roughly where it was in early November. There is more downside ahead. China is tapping the monetary brakes, attempting to contain the shadow banking system. However, it is difficult to target one segment of the economy through monetary policy. Tight policy is starting to backlash onto commodity prices, including steel and iron ore. A number of indicators suggest that China's internal dynamics will further undermine global steel share prices. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the recent Chinese yield curve inversion is pointing toward more pain ahead for U.S. steel producers. Further, the Chinese credit impulse is waning. Historically, BCA's Chinese Credit Impulse Indicator (CII) has an excellent track record forecasting relative performance momentum. The latest grim CII reading warns that U.S. steel stocks have more downside (second panel, Chart 10). Slower Chinese credit creation will continue to weigh on infrastructure spending. Chinese capital expenditure and loan growth are joined at the hip. Feeble loan growth suggests that fewer projects will come to fruition (third panel, Chart 10). Sinking iron ore prices reflect this grim outlook. The implication is that overly optimistic relative profit estimates are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 10). True, Chinese steel exports and domestic production have eased, which suggests that the risk of a steel inventory glut has receded. Nevertheless, U.S. steel imports have climbed anew, despite ongoing steel tariffs. As steel imports command a larger share of U.S. domestic production, price deflation is necessary to resolve this imbalance (Chart 11). This will cast a shadow on steel profit prospects. Steel industry troubles are not endemic to China. Worrisomely, U.S. steel demand dynamics remain unfavorable. Two key domestic end-markets are quickly losing steam. Commercial real estate and automobile excesses are starting to correct. Banks are reining in credit to both loan categories according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (second panel, Chart 12). Simultaneously, within commercial real estate, construction and land development credit demand is also anemic. With regard to consumer loan categories, auto loan demand has registered the worst showing. Chart 10China Macro Weighs On Steel Chart 11Steel Deflation Looms Chart 12Weak Domestic End-Markets Provide No Relief Already, non-residential construction is flirting with contraction and light vehicle sales are sinking like a stone (third panel, Chart 12). As a result the steel industry's new orders-to-inventories ratio has come off the boil, exerting a gravitational pull on scrap steel prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). The implication is that steel price deflation will undermine industry profits. Adding it up, the U.S. steel industry's earnings hurdle is sky-high. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues signal that U.S. steel producers' profits will surprise to the downside. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid steel stocks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 steel index are: BLBG: S15STEL - TMST, ATI, CMC, X, AKS, CRS, HAYN, RS, ZEUS, WOR, SXC, STLD, NUE. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Great Expectations?" dated April 3, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated December 5, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The structural theme of overweighting technology stocks within the overall equity benchmark, and relative to other cyclical sectors such as commodities and machinery stocks, remains intact. However, in absolute terms, EM tech/semi share prices have become overbought and have already priced in a lot of good news. They will likely sell off soon due to the potential slowdown in the pace of semiconductor demand. Continue overweighting EM tech stocks, Taiwanese and Korean bourses within EM equity portfolios. We also reiterate our long-standing long tech / short materials strategy. Feature EM technology stocks have surged to all-time highs (Chart I-1, top panel), contributing significantly to the ongoing EM rally. In fact, excluding tech stocks, EM share prices have not yet surpassed a major technical hurdle, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-1. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team has been recommending that investors overweight tech stocks since June 8, 2010. In our report titled, How To Play EM Growth In The Coming Decade,1 we contended that the structural bull market in commodities was over, and that in the coming decade (2010-2019) the winners would be health care and technology (Chart I-2). We also identified a potential mania candidate - i.e., a segment that was poised for exponential price gains. We reasoned that the fusion between technology and health care - health care equipment stocks - could experience exponential price moves. This strategy has paid off exceptionally well. Consistently, within the EM equity benchmark, we have been overweighting Taiwanese and Korean tech stocks since 2007 and 2010, respectively (Chart I-3). Chart I-1EM Tech Stocks Have ##br##Surged To All Time Highs Chart I-2EMS Strategy Since 2010: ##br##Long Tech / Short Materials Chart I-3Taiwanese & Korean Tech ##br##Stocks Relative To Overall EM After such enormous gains, a relevant question is whether technology share prices will continue to rally in absolute terms, boosting the EM equity benchmark, or whether their absolute performance and/or relative performance will roll over. Chart I-4EM Tech Stocks Are Overbought Before we proceed in laying out our analysis, a caveat is in order: we can offer thematic long-term views on various sectors, but investors should realize the investment calls on many technology, internet and social media companies are driven by bottom-up - not macro - views. From a top-down perspective, we can offer little insight on whether EM internet and social media stocks such as Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu are cheap or expensive, whether their business models are or are not proficient, or what their profit outlooks might be. The reason is that these and other global internet/social media companies' revenues are not driven by business cycle dynamics and top-down analysis is less imperative in forecasting their performance. In this report we will shed some light on the business cycle in the global/Asian semiconductor industry. The latter is subject to both business cycle swings as well as sector-specific factors. Again, sector-unique factors for the semi industry are also beyond our top-down approach. The five largest constituents of the EM MSCI tech sector are Samsung (4.3% of EM MSCI market cap), Tencent (4.0%), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (3.5%), Alibaba (3.0%), and Baidu (1.0%). Chart I-4 shows their share prices. In short, they have become a large part of the EM benchmark and are also extremely overbought, increasing the risk of correction. Technology's Structural Bull Market Is Intact... Even though EM tech prices have skyrocketed in both absolute and relative terms, odds are that the structural bull market has further to run. There are no structural excesses in the technology sector that would warrant a bust for now. Even in China, credit/leverage excesses are concentrated in the old industries, not among the tech and new economy segments. Demand for tech products in general and semiconductors in particular is not very dependent on the credit cycle in EM. In both developed market (DM) and EM economies, spending on many tech gadgets is contingent on income gains rather than credit growth. Our bearish view on EM/China growth is primarily due to our expectations of a credit downturn that will affect spending that is financed by credit. Investment expenditures driven by credit are much more important for commodities and industrial goods than technology products. While the share prices of technology and new economy companies are overbought and may be expensive, global/EM economic demand growth will be skewed toward new industries and technologies rather than commodities. In brief, the outlook for global tech spending remains positive, both cyclically and structurally. Having outperformed all other sectors by a large margin, the EM technology sector presently accounts for 26% of the EM MSCI benchmark, while at its previous structural peak in 2000 its market share stood at 22% (Chart I-5, top panel). During the 1999-2000 tech bubble, the U.S. and DM tech sector’s share of market cap reached 34% and 24% of the U.S. MSCI and DM MSCI benchmark market caps, respectively (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). Despite being stretched, it is possible that the technology sector's market cap will rise further before another structural top transpires. Hence, we are not yet ready to call the top in the tech's share of the overall market cap either in EM or DM. From a very long-term perspective (since 1960), the relative performance of the U.S. technology sector against the S&P 500 has not yet reached two standard deviations above its time trend, as it did in the year 2000 during the tech bubble. Conversely, the same measure for energy, materials and machinery stocks is not yet depressed enough to warrant a mean reversion bet (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Tech Stocks Market Cap Share ##br##Of Overall Equity Benchmarks Chart I-6Relative Performance Of ##br##U.S. Sectors Vs. S&P 500 Finally, secular leadership rotations within global equities typically occur during market downturns. Chart I-7 shows that commodities stocks and tech leadership changed in 2001 and 2008. It is possible that new sectoral leadership will emerge in global equities during the next bear market/severe selloff. However, it is too early to bet on it now. The current character of equity markets - which favors technology over commodities - will persist. Bottom Line: The structural theme of overweighting technology stocks within the overall equity benchmark and relative to other cyclical sectors such as resources/commodities and machinery stocks remains intact. ...But The Semi Cycle Upswing Is Advanced The semiconductors industry is cyclical, and as such business cycle analysis is pertinent here. The rest of the technology sector, however, is not correlated with overall business cycles. Therefore, there is little value that macro analysis can deliver on the outlook for non-semi tech areas. This is why this section is focused on semiconductors rather than the overall tech sector. There is no basis as to why semiconductor/tech cycles should correlate with commodities cycles. However, when they do, the amplitude of global business cycle fluctuations rises. Indeed, Asian exports and global trade tumbled in 2015 and have subsequently improved over the past 12 months for the following reason: the 2015 downturn and the ensuing recovery in the semiconductor cycle overlapped with similar swings in commodities and Chinese capital goods demand (Chart I-8). This has increased the amplitude of the global business cycle's swings in the past two years. Chart I-7Secular Leadership ##br##Rotation: Tech Vs. Energy Chart I-8Chinese Capital Goods Imports & ##br##Global Semiconductor Cycle We remain bearish on Chinese capital spending in general and construction in particular. This entails weaker demand for commodities and industrial goods. Yet we are not bearish on Chinese demand for semiconductors and tech devices. The semiconductor cycle has experienced a mini boom in the past 12-18 months. Demand for electronic products in the U.S. has been exceptionally strong (Chart I-9, top panel). Moreover, European production and sale of overall high-tech products as well as computer and electronic products have been robust (Chart I-9, bottom panel). In China, retail sales of communication appliances have also been extremely healthy (Chart I-10, top panel). By extension, the mainland's production of electronics has also boomed (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Chart I-9DM Demand For Tech Is Strong... Chart I-10...And So Is China's One soft spot for semi demand, however, could emanate from the global auto sector. U.S. auto sales have begun to contract, and auto production will likely shrink as well (Chart I-11, top panel). In addition, the growth rate of auto sales in both China and Europe may have reached a peak (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Annual vehicle sales have reached 25 million units in China, and 17 million vehicles in both the U.S. and euro area. Overall global auto production is set to decelerate and this will weigh on semiconductor demand given that autos consume a lot of electronics. In addition, there are several other indications that suggest a mini-slowdown will likely transpire in the global semiconductor sector later this year: Taiwan's narrow money (M1) growth impulse has historically been correlated with the tech-heavy TSE index and has led export cycles (Chart I-12). This money impulse currently heralds a major top and relapse in both share prices and exports. Chart I-11Global Auto Production Chart I-12Taiwanese M1 Money Impulse Is Signaling A ##br##Growth Slowdown And Risk To Stocks The semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio has peaked in Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). This indicates that the best of the semi upswing may be behind us. Consistently, both global semiconductor producers' and semiconductor equipment stocks' forward EPS net revisions have already surged, and are elevated. This implies that a lot of earnings optimism has been priced in. Historically, when forward earning net revisions have reached these levels, global semi share prices have rolled over or entered a consolidation period (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Korea's & Taiwan's Semi ##br##Cycle Is Topping Out Chart I-14Semiconductors' Forward EPS ##br##Revisions Are Elevated Bottom Line: We expect a moderation in semi demand, but not recession. Semi share prices may react negatively to slower demand growth as the former have become extremely overbought and have already priced in a lot of good news. Investment Conclusions Semiconductor stocks have become overbought and a marginal slowdown in demand might be enough to cause a shake-out. The same is true for the overall tech sector. That said, we continue to recommend that investors overweight EM tech stocks, Taiwanese and Korean bourses within the EM equity portfolios. We also reiterate our long-standing long tech / short materials strategy. Remarkably, the KOSPI and Taiwanese TSE indexes - highly leveraged to semiconductors - have rallied to their previous highs (Chart I-15). In the past, they failed to break above these levels and we expect them to struggle again. If these equity indexes pull back and tech stocks correct, the overall EM stock index will roll over too. The rest of EM equity universe has much poorer fundamentals than tech companies. Financials and commodities sectors make 25% and 7% of the EM MSCI benchmark's market cap, respectively. The former is at risk from credit slowdown in EM and the latter is at a risk from lower commodities prices (Chart I-16). Chart I-15KOSPI & TSE Have Reached ##br##Major Resistances Chart I-16Industrial Metals ##br##Prices To Head Lower On the whole, we believe the recent divergence of EM risk assets from commodities prices and the EM/China credit cycles does not represent a structural regime shift in EM fundamentals, it rather reflects complacency in the marketplace. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "How The Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade", dated June 8, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The opposing forces currently pulling on global bonds - softer growth and core inflation readings vs. tightening labor markets - are keeping yields locked into narrow trading ranges. We expect the strength of the global upturn to reassert itself, leading to higher government bond yields and corporate credit outperformance over the balance of 2017. U.K./Canada/Australia: Economic data, as well as our bond market indicators, are giving conflicting signals for the outlook for yields in the U.K., Canada & Australia. Our analysis of the relative growth and inflation dynamics in the three countries leads us to recommend a 2-year/30-year yield curve box trade, positioning for a relatively flatter curve in Canada and a relatively steeper curve in the U.K. Portugal Trade Update: Improving growth indicators, and declining measures of banking sector risk, in Portugal have resulted in a sharp narrowing of government spreads versus Germany. We are exiting our short 10-year Portugal/long 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade this week, at a loss of -1.6%. Feature Chart of the WeekMarket Volatility Is Low For A Good Reason What was once a fairly straightforward narrative for global bond markets earlier this year is now being challenged. Growth data has cooled a bit in the U.S. and China, while commodity prices have fallen, suggesting that the global economy may be losing steam even with leading indicators still rising and the European economy looking robust. At the same time, core inflation measures have ticked lower despite the signs of tighter labor markets throughout the developed world. These moves on the margin have stalled the upturn in global bond yields, resulting in lower fixed income market volatility that is likely playing a role in keeping realized equity market volatility at depressed levels (Chart of the Week). We continue to see the recent pullback in U.S. data as being temporary in nature. The economy should improve in the coming months given the still-solid trends in U.S. corporate profits and household income and the still-low level of interest rates. The signs of a building China slowdown are potentially more worrisome, especially on the inflation front given how much Chinese demand has boosted commodities and overall traded goods prices over the past year. Although we are not expecting a major Chinese downturn that could spill over more broadly to the world economy, it is likely that the next leg up in inflation in the developed economies will come from diminished spare capacity and rising core inflation, rather than a commodity-driven reacceleration of headline inflation. We continue to recommend a strategic underweight overall portfolio duration stance, as we expect the Fed to deliver on its planned rate hikes before year-end and the European Central Bank (ECB) to soon begin signaling a tapering of its asset purchases next year. We continue to favor corporate credit over sovereign debt, particularly in the U.S., given the strength of the current global upturn, but staying up in credit quality (i.e. focusing on Investment Grade and higher-rated credit tiers in High-Yield). Stuck On Neutral: Considering Trades Between Canada, Australia & The U.K. Over the past few months, we have upgraded our stance on government bond exposure in the U.K., Canada and Australia - all to neutral and all for essentially the same reason. There was not a compelling enough case to expect any of the central banks in those countries to move interest rates before year-end, in either direction, given the lack of sustainable inflation pressures and mixed messages on growth. With policymakers stuck on hold for the foreseeable future, keeping our recommended bond weightings at benchmark was the logical (albeit unexciting) choice. Even the mixed messages sent by our own bond indicators highlight the difficulty in making a decisive market call at the moment. Our Central Bank Monitors for Canada and Australia have recently flipped into the "tighter policy required" zone, joining the U.K. Monitor which has been there for some time (Chart 2).1 This would suggest moving to an underweight stance in anticipation of tighter monetary policy in those countries that is currently not priced into money market curves (bottom panel). Yet the best performing bond market of the three over the past two years has been the U.K. - a trend that started before last year's Brexit vote when the U.K. economy was in relatively good shape and the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to send hawkish messages. Gilts now look the most overvalued judging by the current negative real yields on offer (Chart 3), yet our U.K. Central Bank Monitor is showing signs of topping out, further adding to the confusion. Chart 2Markets Don't Expect Anything From BoE/BoC/RBA Chart 3Gilts Look Most Expensive Having mixed directional signals, however, does not imply that there are not trade opportunities within these markets. Even if the BoE, the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) are not in a hurry to begin hiking interest rates, domestic growth and inflation pressures are building at a different pace within these economies, creating potential cross-market trade opportunities. Economic Growth: Canada has the strongest leading economic indicator, manufacturing PMI and consumer sentiment, but the softest business confidence (Chart 4) - perhaps because of concerns over the future protectionist trade policies of U.S. President Donald Trump. In the U.K., a combination of falling real wage growth and persistently high levels of political uncertainty after Brexit are weighing on consumer sentiment, yet business confidence is the strongest of the three countries. Meanwhile, overall confidence in Australia is the weakest, even with manufacturing in a strong upturn. Most worryingly, real consumer spending is slowing rapidly in all three countries, although it is holding up relatively better in Canada. Inflation: The differences in price pressures are less pronounced (Chart 5). Inflation rates are similar among the three economies as Australian core CPI inflation appears to have finally bottomed out in the first quarter of this year after falling steadily since 2014. All three countries are witnessing decelerating wage growth, however, even with solid job growth in Canada over the past year. Spare capacity measures like the output gap and unemployment gap show the U.K. economy being closest to full employment (Chart 6). Spare capacity is steadily being absorbed in Canada, although the BoC attributes this to a slower pace of potential GDP growth, according to last month's BoC Monetary Policy Report (MPR).2 Chart 4Canadian Economic Data Looks Strongest Chart 5No Major Inflation Differences Home Prices & Debt: The housing markets remain an issue in Canada and Australia, where home prices look severely overvalued with household debt at elevated levels (Chart 7). The governments in both countries are trying to use regulatory and macro-prudential solutions to cool red-hot housing demand, but rapid growth in housing wealth remains a source of stimulus for consumers at the moment. The situation is different in the U.K., where home valuations and debt levels are nowhere near as elevated as in the other two countries (although London homeowners may disagree). Chart 6No Spare Capacity In The U.K. Chart 7Household Debt A Concern In Canada & Australia Exports: Each country is also exposed to a different major economy via the export channel. The OECD leading economic indicators for the U.S., Euro Area and China (the largest export markets for Canada, the U.K. and Australia, respectively) are all ticking higher, suggesting that export demand should pick up for Canada, the U.K. and Australia in the near term (Chart 8). However, Australian exports to China have already expanded at a 60% annual rate and our Emerging Market and China strategists are expecting some cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of this year; slower export growth should be expected. Chart 8An Unsustainable Surge In Aussie##BR##Export Demand From China After adding up all the pieces, it is still difficult to select one government bond market over the others in absolute terms. The U.K. would appear to have the least bond-friendly backdrop, with higher inflation and very low real interest rates. Yet the BoE is worried about many factors - Brexit uncertainties on trade and business confidence, declining real household income growth - that should prevent them from shifting to a less accommodative monetary stance before year-end that would involve reduced Gilt purchases and/or outright interest rate hikes. Conversely, Australia seems to have the most bond-bullish climate - a still-negative output gap, plunging consumer confidence, very low inflation and the heaviest exposure to a Chinese economy that is set to cool off. Yet while core inflation remains low at 1.5%, it appears to be bottoming out and the RBA is currently forecasting that its preferred measure of underlying inflation will move up to 2% - the low end of its 2-3% target range - by early 2018, according to their just-released Statement on Monetary Policy.3 In Canada, the BoC continues to take a very cautious view on Canadian growth, despite the robust 4% real GDP growth seen in the first quarter of this year. Sluggish growth in exports and capital spending is expected to be a drag on growth this year, according to the April BoC MPR. Yet the central bank is now "decidedly neutral" and is no longer considering a rate cut as it was earlier this year according to BoC Governor (and BCA alumnus) Stephen Poloz.4 Given all the various factors pushing and pulling on these three economies and central banks, it is perhaps no surprise that yield moves have been highly correlated across these bond markets over the past several months (Chart 9). The most attractive near-term risk/reward opportunities now appear to be in relative yield curve trades rather than directional allocations or cross-country spread trades. Specifically, we see an opportunity to play for a steeper Gilt curve, and a relatively flatter Canadian government bond curve, via a 2-year/30-year box trade. Given the strong readings on current and leading economic indicators in Canada, combined with our view that the recent patch of slower U.S. growth will prove to be temporary, we see the greatest potential for upside growth surprises in Canada. The BoC is likely to wait before delivering rate hikes until there is decisive evidence of accelerating inflation, especially given the potential economic risks deriving from the Canadian housing bubble. However, better-than-expected growth will exert more flattening pressure on the Canadian yield curve than the U.K. or Australian curves, where downside growth risks are greater. Already, the very front end of the Canadian curve is starting to disengage from the U.K. and Australian curves, with the 2-year/5-year flattening modestly in Canada and the other markets showing steepening curves at similar maturities (Chart 10, top panel). We expect that relative flattening pressure to exert itself further out the yield curve for Canadian government debt over the latter half of 2017. Chart 9Yields Are Highly Correlated... Chart 10...Curve Slopes, Slightly Less Correlated In the U.K., the long end of the Gilt curve has rallied to very rich levels, with the 10-year/30-year slope now trading near the bottom of the range that has prevailed since 2014 (bottom panel). Much of that has been driven by a decline in longer-term inflation expectations that has accompanied the more stable British Pound. While the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming Brexit negotiations with the European Union will likely weigh on business confidence and investment spending in the U.K., the immediate impact of the robust Euro Area economy on U.K. exports should provide a boost to U.K. economic growth. Coming at a time when the U.K. is at, or even beyond, full employment, this should put some mild upward pressure on inflation expectations further out the curve, leading to steepening pressures on a relative basis to Canada. This can already be seen in looking at the 2-year/30-year yield curve box between the Canada and the U.K. in Chart 11. In all three panels, we show the steepness of the Canadian bond curve minus that of the Gilt curve, alongside the differentials in actual inflation, and market-based inflation expectations from the index-linked markets, between Canada and the U.K. As can be seen in the top two panels, the Canadian curve looks too steep relative to the U.K. curve given the higher rates of headline and core inflation in the U.K. The bottom panel shows that the 2-year/30-year box is in line with the relative inflation expectations within the two countries. We see this as a sign that U.K. inflation expectations are too low relative to actual U.K. inflation, leaving the Gilt curve too flat relative to the Canadian curve. While this would appear to argue for a relative trade between inflation-linked bonds in Canada and the U.K., the poor liquidity of the small Canadian linker market makes this a difficult trade for most investors to put on. We prefer to express the view via yield curves, particularly with the 2-year/30-year Canada-U.K. box currently priced in the bond forwards to move sideways over the rest of the year (Chart 12). This means that betting on a steeper Gilt curve relative to Canada does not incur negative carry - important for a trade with a more medium-term horizon like this. Chart 11Gilt 2/30 Curve Too Flat Relative To Canada Chart 12Enter A 2/30 Canada-U.K. Box Trade This week, we are adding this 2-year/30-year Canada-U.K. position to our strategic model portfolio at -7bps. The initial target is for the box to return to -50bps - the bottom of the range that has prevailed since 2015. A deeper decline would occur if the BoC begins to signal a rate hike in Canada at some point that puts even more flattening pressure on the Canadian curve, although that is not our base case expectation over the rest of 2017. The risk to the trade would come from a deceleration of U.K. inflation that eliminates the current divergence between realized and expected inflation. What about Australia? We anticipate that there will be an opportunity to move to an eventual overweight position in Australian bonds in the coming months to position for the slowing of Chinese growth, and the related demand for Australian exports, that we expect. We are choosing to stay neutral for now, however, given the current uptick in Australian inflation that muddies the water on any call on RBA monetary policy. Bottom Line: Economic data, as well as our bond market indicators, are giving conflicting signals for the outlook for yields in the U.K., Canada & Australia. Our analysis of the relative growth and inflation dynamics in the three countries leads us to recommend a 2-year/30-year yield curve box trade, positioning for a flatter curve in Canada and a steeper curve in the U.K. Tactical Overlay Housekeeping: Cutting Losses On Portugal Shorts One of our long-held positions in our Tactical Overlay trade portfolio has been a short position in Portugal 10-year government bonds versus a long position in 10-year German Bunds. We put the trade on last summer as part of a broader allocation at the time out of Peripheral European sovereign debt into core European debt. The logic was straightforward - the combined stress of decelerating economic growth and struggling banking systems in the Periphery (made worse by the ECB's negative interest rate policies) would result in some spread widening in Italy, Spain and Portugal. While that story remains true in Italy, both leading economic indicators and measures of financial sector risk like credit default swap (CDS) spreads for senior banks have a decline in Spain and Portugal. While we have already upgraded our recommended allocation to Spanish debt in our model portfolio, we had been reluctant to consider a similar move in Portugal given our concerns about its economy and, more importantly, its banking system. But with leading economic indicators starting to perk up and bank CDS spreads in Portugal falling sharply, and with German Bund yields rising alongside growing market nervousness of a potential ECB taper, Portugal-Germany spreads have tightened sharply. We are belatedly cutting our losses on this position this week and closing out the position at a loss of -1.6%. We plan on publishing a deeper dive on Portugal in the coming weeks to update our views on the country and its bond markets. Bottom Line: Improving growth indicators, and declining measures of banking sector risk, in Portugal have resulted in a sharp narrowing of government spreads versus Germany. We are exiting our short 10-year Portugal/long 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade this week, at a loss of -1.6%. 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 Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mpr-2017-04-12.pdf 3 http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2017/may/pdf/statement-on-monetary-policy-2017-05.pdf 4 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/poloz-sees-faster-canada-return-to-full-capacity-key-takeaways The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

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