Global

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2018. The quant model lifted its U.S. allocation to be in line with the benchmark weight at the expense of Spain. No major changes in other country weights, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 59 bps in July, largely driven by Level 2 model which outperformed its benchmark by 146 bps. Level 1 model slightly unperformed its MSCI world benchmark by 5 bps in July. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 132 bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 375 bps offset by the 2 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2018. Following the developments on the trade front and increasing worries of a growth slowdown, the model continues to maintain a defensive bias with an aggregate overweight of 5.8% relative to cyclical sectors. The relative tilts within cyclicals and defensives remain the same as the previous month. However, both discretionary and financials are going through unfavorable technical and momentum indicators. Energy remains the only resource based sector with an overweight, primarily driven by attractive long-term valuations. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Chart of the WeekTrade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Bearish sentiment in ag markets is overdone. We believe prices have bottomed. But we are not yet ready to get bullish, given the elevated trade-policy uncertainty dominating markets at present. The evolution of grains and bean prices from here will depend on whether ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its largest ag markets are transitory or permanent (Chart of the Week). Highlights Energy: Overweight. We closed our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread last week with a net gain of 80%. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, which are down an average 2.7%, and the SP GSCI, which is up 12.1%. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum prices are down ~ 1.6% in the past week, following indications from U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sanctions against Russian aluminum supplier Rusal could be removed. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices recovered slightly over the past week, but remain under pressure, given continued strength in the broad trade-weighted USD and real U.S. interest rates. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, nonetheless. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fundamentals support higher grain and bean prices. However, trade-policy uncertainty - particularly re Sino - U.S. relations - will keep them under pressure (see below). Feature Weather-related uncertainty typically is center stage when it comes to forecasting ag prices during the growing season. This year, trade-policy uncertainty emanating from Washington will contend with weather risk as the dominant influence on prices. We do not expect ag-related trade policies to become more hostile. This means the path of ag prices will be contingent on whether the current trade disputes - primarily between the U.S. and China - are transient or permanent features of international trade. Given what we've seen already, we can expect American farmers will fare poorly in the ongoing trade spats. U.S. agricultural exports have been disproportionately hard hit by tariffs from their most important foreign consumer markets, levied in retaliation against U.S. tariffs (Chart 2). BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy analysts assign a high probability to the escalation of current tensions into a full-blown trade war.1 Nevertheless, we believe the negative sentiment in ag markets is overdone, and that there is not much further downside from here. It is unsurprising that agriculture is a natural first target in this trade dispute. More than a quarter of U.S. crops are exported, with the share rising above 50% in many cases (Chart 3). This provides foreign consumers with ammunition in the dispute. Furthermore, these exports account for a large chunk of global ag trade, in some cases making American exports price makers in the global market. Importantly, many farmers and farm-belt voters cast ballots for Donald Trump. Chart 2American Ags Hit Hard##BR##By Trade Barriers... Chart 3...Because They Are Exposed##BR##To Foreign Markets The USDA's plans announced earlier this week to spend as much as $12 billion between September and end of harvest to help soften the impact of tariff retaliations against U.S. farm states loyal to Trump are not unexpected. The measures will entail (1) direct payments to soybean, sorghum, cotton, corn, wheat, dairy and pork farmers, (2) the procurement and subsequent re-distribution of ag products to nutrition programs, and (3) working with the private sector to promote trade and develop new export markets.2 Trade Spats Hit Grain Markets Hard Grain markets have been especially hard hit in the cross-fire between the U.S. and some of its key trade partners (Table 1). China's retaliatory tariffs are especially consequential, due to its outsized role as a main ag demand market. Table 1Ags Caught In The Crossfire All in all, the Thomson Reuters Equal Weight Grains & Oilseeds Index is down ~ 10% since end-May on the back of these tariffs. Soybeans lead the decline with a 17% loss. We have been foreshadowing this since the beginning of the year.3 Now that it's played out consistent with our previous expectations, it leaves us wondering "now what?" We see three potential scenarios unfolding in the ongoing trade skirmish: Scenario 1: The current tariffs remain in place with no significant increase in ag-relevant trade barriers.4 Scenario 2: The disputes peak soon, and de-escalate. In this scenario, tariffs imposed since the beginning of the year are reversed, ultimately leading to a free and now-fairer global trade order. Scenario 3: A complete breakdown in global trade. This scenario can take on a soft outcome whereby tariffs are increased, or to a more aggressive scenario, resulting in a seismic collapse in world trade agreements. The first two scenarios are clearly more optimistic. In Scenario 1, near-term downside to prices would be restrained, contingent on the responses of major ag consumers. We discuss their four main options and potential courses of action below. Scenario 2 is the most bullish, with price formation once again a function of supply-demand-inventory fundamentals. In this scenario, exogenous risks primarily stem from weather and U.S. financial variables. However, Scenario 3, in which a prolonged trade war pushes the global economy into a recession, would intensify the pain. This would lead to a contraction in the global flow of goods and services, reducing access to foreign markets. Additionally, it would hurt ag demand through the income channel. Consumption growth of ags is correlated with income growth. If the trade war bears down on incomes, it will reduce per-capita demand for ag commodities, which ultimately depresses prices. This is especially true in the case of lower income and emerging economies, where demand is more elastic. Impact Of Tariffs In face of higher costs brought on by U.S. tariffs, foreign buyers are essentially faced with four options: Reduce imports from the U.S., and opt to purchase more from other major producers; Reduce consumption of particular crops by substituting with others; Consume out of inventory, or Continue purchasing U.S. crops, but at a higher price. Chart 4Soybean Farmers Are Most Vulnerable Given the heightened risks surrounding the Sino-American trade dispute, we analyze these possibilities with reference to China. In addition, since soybeans are the most vulnerable of the crops hit by the trade dispute, we focus on beans, arguing that in most cases similar courses of action can be taken for other crops (Chart 4). Chinese authorities have already communicated that they plan to use options 1 - 3, and, as such, have assessed the impact of these restrictions on Chinese buyers to be minimal. Furthermore, according to a comment earlier this month by Lu Xiaodong, deputy general manager of state stockpile Sinograin, China is capable of fully meeting its needs without importing soybeans from the U.S.5 The extent to which buyers are successful in doing so will ultimately determine the overall impact of the trade dispute on U.S. ag markets. We expect China's solution will be a mélange of these four options. Below we assess these possibilities. Option 1: Chinese Buyers Are Turning To Other Major Producers An oft-noted change in Chinese purchasing behavior in reference to U.S. soybeans has been cited as the rationale for the negative sentiment towards U.S. ags. While it is true that Chinese buyers have been shunning American beans, the conclusion fails to recognize a few key points (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Soybean Exports Down On Weak Sales To China First, due to the difference in crop calendars - South American beans are harvested in spring while the U.S. crop is harvested in the fall - there is a clear seasonal pattern in China's purchasing behavior (Chart 6). Thus, greater Chinese imports of Brazilian soybeans are typical for this time of year. In addition, agricultural commodities are fungible, which means a reduction of China's imports of U.S. crops does not mean the U.S. crops will go to waste. While American crops are clearly trading at a disadvantage from the perspective of a Chinese buyer, there are still other foreign markets open to American ag exports. Now that these crops are selling at a discount, they have become much more competitive, incentivizing a shift in trade flows. This has already started - the U.S. has increased exports to consumers such as Egypt and Mexico, and even found soybeans buyers in Argentina and Brazil, both major producers of soybeans (Chart 7)! Chart 6Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Chart 7New Markets Opening Up For American Beans Option 2: China Will Adjust Its Feed Recipe China's decision to remove import tariffs on animal feed ingredients from Asian suppliers also highlights another policy route. To the extent possible, Chinese consumers will attempt to find substitutes for the now-more-costly U.S. imports. This includes supplies from alternative producers, and imports of substitute products. The potential from this option depends on the availability of close substitutes to replace ags exports affected by the Sino - U.S. trade dispute. In the case of soybeans, Chinese bean imports are crushed to produce meal and oil. The former is then used as a primary protein in livestock feed, while the latter is refined to be used in foods. Similarly, the majority of corn is also used as a critical ingredient in animal feed. As such, in face of higher costs, bean crushers will likely turn to meal from other protein substitutes such as rapeseed, peanuts and sunflower seeds. Nevertheless, soybean meal remains the optimal source of protein for livestock. Thus, while China will attempt to reduce its consumption of the tariff-laden U.S. ags, alternatives are not perfect substitutes. Consequently, this option does not completely eliminate the need for soybean imports. Option 3: Eat Into Ag Inventories Chart 8Chinese Stocks Will - Partially -##BR##Cushion The Blow Chinese ag inventories are relatively high and can cushion the blow to supply, at least temporarily (Chart 8). This means we may see a decline in Chinese stocks, on the back of drawdowns to fill in the gap left by lower imports from the U.S. While Beijing's stocks are notoriously large, there are reports that, in some cases, they are of low quality, and are unfit for human and animal consumption. Thus, this policy may appear more feasible on paper than in reality. Without accurate information regarding the size and quality of China's ag inventories, it is impossible to determine the potential of this option. Option 4: Absorb the Price Hike: Continue Importing - Now Pricier - U.S. Ags Chinese buyers likely will attempt to exhaust options 1 - 3 above, before resorting to purchasing now-pricier U.S. grains and beans. Nevertheless, it is inevitable - some U.S. ags will continue to flow to China. The relevant question - admittedly extremely difficult to quantify - is with regards to the magnitude of the impact. This essentially will depend on China's ability to use options 1 - 3, to avoid the now-higher import costs. While in the case of soybeans, U.S. exports have been shunned for now, the true test will come in the fall after the Brazilian harvest is over, and the market is flooded with the American crops. Furthermore, the 25% increase in costs due to the tariffs will, to some extent, be offset by the discount in the price of the American crops. Fundamentals Imply Higher Ag Prices While ag markets have taken several direct hits recently, we believe global fundamentals are not as bearish as current pricing conditions suggest. In the event there is a de-escalation of trade disputes - Scenario 2 above - prices will rebound to levels implied by fundamentals. While soybeans are expected to record a small surplus in the 2018 - 19 crop year, wheat and corn will be in a global deficit (Chart 9). Furthermore, global inventories - measured in stocks-to-use terms - are expected to come down. In the case of corn and soybeans, this will be the second consecutive annual decline (Chart 10). Chart 9Bullish Fundamentals On Back##BR##Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Chart 10...And Falling##BR##Inventories In the corn market, the inventory drawdown is , to a large extent, driven by Chinese policy which is incentivizing the consumption of stocks by offering lower subsidies to corn farmers vs. soybeans, and through measures to encourage corn use for ethanol. This is expected to bring stocks down to levels last witnessed in the 1960s! On the other hand, U.S. soybean stocks are expected to continue increasing in line with lower demand for American beans by the world's largest soybean consumer (China). As always, weather is the biggest source of near term supply-side uncertainty. Wheat prices are supported by weather concerns in Europe - particularly the Black Sea region - which is damaging crops there. This is especially important given the expectation of a smaller crop there this year. Some Final Notes A couple of distinctions within the ags space reveals some ags are more vulnerable to the ongoing dispute than others. These are the number of sellers and the number of buyers in these markets. For instance, U.S. soybean exports have fewer foreign markets than corn, making them relatively more susceptible to downward price movements as supplies back up and are forced to find alternative markets. This is especially true since China is the single largest consumer of soybeans (Chart 11). Chart 11Global Wheat Market Relatively Insulated From Trade Frictions On the other hand, the global wheat market resembles a perfectly competitive market. This means that there are many buyers and sellers, each with limited ability to influence prices. Given that both the U.S. and China are price takers in this market, wheat prices will be relatively more insulated from trade headwinds. As such, we favor wheat in the current environment. Bottom Line: American farmers will be the losers in the still-evolving Sino - American trade disputes, as barriers are imposed on their exports, rendering them uncompetitive for their most significant foreign consumer. However, this will open markets for other global producers - most notably Brazil, Argentina, and the Black Sea region - making farmers there the winners in this dispute. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Factbox: USDA's $12 billion farmer relief package," dated July 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, page 9 from "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, and "Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up," dated May 3, 2018. 4 Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expect the trade dispute to intensify, especially before the mid-terms. However, tariffs already have been placed on most ag commodities we follow. This leaves little room for further risk from this direct channel, unless tariff rates are increased. 5 Please see "China does not need U.S. soybeans for state reserves: Sinograin official," dated June 12, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights FTSE100 = Overweight global Oil and Gas in pounds. Eurostoxx50 = Overweight global Banks in euros. Nikkei225 = Overweight global Industrials in yen. S&P500 = Overweight global Technology in dollars. Of these four sector and four currency components, we have more conviction right now on the four sectors than on the four currencies. Through the summer, our preferred ranking of the four sectors is: Technology, Banks and Industrials (tied), Oil and Gas. Which necessarily means that our preferred ranking of the major equity markets is: S&P500, Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 (tied), FTSE100. Chart I-1FTSE100 Vs. S&P500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Feature Many investors cling to the notion that the relative performance of equity markets hinges on the relative economic performance of their regions of domicile. This might have been true thirty or forty years ago when the companies that dominated the mainstream indexes had an outsize exposure to the local economy. But those days are long gone. Today, the leading companies in the mainstream equity indexes are multinationals, whose sales and profits depend on the fortunes of the global economy rather than on the local economy. Equity Market Allocation Is All About Sectors And Currencies Let's face it, BP is not really a U.K. company, it is a global company which happens to be headquartered and listed in the U.K. Likewise, Apple is not really a U.S. company, it is a global company headquartered and listed in the U.S. And so on for the vast majority of mainstream index constituents. However, BP is most certainly an oil and gas company which moves in lockstep with the global energy sector; and Apple is most certainly a technology company which moves with the global tech sector. Hence, by far the most important performance differentiator for any mainstream equity index is the sector fingerprint that distinguishes the equity index from its peers. The sector fingerprints for the four major equity markets are: overweight oil and gas for the FTSE100, overweight banks for the Eurostoxx50, overweight industrials for the Nikkei225, and overweight technology for the S&P500 (Table I-1). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Four Major Equity Markets To complete the story, there is another matter to consider: the currency. A multinational oil company like BP receives its revenues and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, there is a mismatch between BP's global business, denominated in multiple currencies, and the BP stock price, denominated in just one currency: the pound. The upshot is that if the pound strengthens, and all else is equal, the company's multi-currency profits will translate into fewer pounds and drag down the stock price. Conversely, if the pound weakens, the multi-currency profits will translate into more pounds and boost the BP stock price. Therefore, the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market is the currency channel, but in a counterintuitive way: a strong economy tends to lift the currency and hinder the local stock market; a weak economy tends to depress the currency and help the local stock market. Combining the sector and currency drivers of equity market selection, we can summarize: FTSE100 = Overweight global Oil and Gas in pounds. Eurostoxx50 = Overweight global Banks in euros. Nikkei225 = Overweight global Industrials in yen. S&P500 = Overweight global Technology in dollars. The Proof Charts I-1 - I-6 show all six permutations of relative performances taken from the S&P500, Eurostoxx50, Nikkei225 and FTSE100 over the last decade. These charts should leave you in no doubt that the sector plus currency effect is all that you need to get right to allocate between these four major indexes. Chart I-2FTSE100 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-3FTSE100 Vs. Eurostoxx50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds ##br##Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-4Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Global Banks In Euros ##br##Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-5Eurostoxx50 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Banks In Euros ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-6S&P500 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Tech In Dollars ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen More recently also, the ranking of the four equity markets has tracked the ranking of the four 'fingerprint' sectors denominated in the respective currency. For example, at the end of May when oil and gas was briefly the top performing global sector this year, the FTSE100 was briefly the top performing major index. But both oil and gas and the FTSE100 have subsequently lost their leadership (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Ranking Of The Four Major Sectors... Chart I-8... Explains The Ranking Of The Four Major Equity Markets One important implication of sectors and currencies driving stock market allocation is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, oil and gas and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Likewise, if investors anticipate the pound to ultimately strengthen - because they see that the pound is structurally cheap today - they might downgrade BP's multi-currency profit growth expectations in pound terms and trade the stock at an apparent discount. But allowing for the anticipated decline in other currencies versus the pound there is no discount. It follows that any multinational listed in Europe will give a false impression of cheapness if investors see European currencies as structurally undervalued. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. The Eight Components Of Equity Market Allocation So how to allocate right now? First, break down the allocation decision into its eight components comprising the four sectors: oil and gas, banks, industrials and technology, plus the four currencies: pound, euro, yen and dollar. Then focus on where you have the highest conviction views among these eight components. Through the summer, we have more conviction on the four sectors than on the four currencies. Classically growth-sensitive sectors are closely tracking the downswing in the global 6-month credit impulse which started early this year. Such mini-downswings consistently last around eight months which suggests that our successful underweight stance to the classical cyclicals remains appropriate through the summer (Chart I-9). Of the four sectors, this implies a relative preference for technology, which is the least sensitive to a global mini-downswing. But how to rank the remaining three cyclical sectors - banks, industrials and oil and gas? Since April there has been a very unusual directional divergence between the oil and gas sector which has rallied while banks and industrials have sold off (Chart I-10). Chart I-9The Underperformance Of Cyclicals ##br##Is Closely Tracking The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Chart I-10Oil And Gas Has Diverged From Banks And Industrials The proximate cause is that oil's supply dynamics, rather than demand dynamics, are dominating its price action. Ultimately though, a higher price based on supply constraints without stronger demand is precarious - because the higher price threatens demand destruction. On the other hand, if global economic demand does reaccelerate, it is the beaten-down industrials and bank equity prices that have the catch-up potential. On this basis, our preferred ranking of the four sectors through the summer is: Technology Banks and Industrials (tied) Oil and Gas Which necessarily means that our ranking of the major equity markets is: S&P500 Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 (tied) FTSE100 A final point: you might have slightly (or very) different views on the four sectors and the four currencies. That's fine. But whatever those views are, plug them into the sector and currency based approach described in this report, as this is the right - and most successful - way to allocate among the major equity markets. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week, but we have six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 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 Interest Rate

Highlights Global Yields: Flattening government yield curves in the developed world have raised concerns about a potential future growth slowdown. Yet real policy rates will need to move into positive territory before monetary policy becomes truly restrictive and curves invert. This means global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. UST-Bund Spread: The U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). UST Technicals: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains bearish. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Feature In most years, investment professionals can look forward to taking some well-deserved time off in July to hit the beach and read a good book. This year, those same investors are forced to keep an eye on their Bloombergs while responding to the public musings of Donald Trump. The president made comments late last week that threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve, while also accusing China and Europe of currency manipulation. While those headlines can briefly move markets on a sunny summer day, they represent more Trump-ian bluster than any potential change in the conduct of U.S. monetary or currency policy. Chart of the WeekCan Policy Be Truly "Tight"##BR##With Negative Real Rates? The underlying dynamic remains one of mixed global growth (strong in the U.S., slowing almost everywhere else) but with low unemployment and rising inflation in most major economies. That means that independent, inflation-fighting central bankers must focus on their inflation mandates. In the U.S., that means more Fed rate hikes and a firm U.S. dollar, regardless of the desires of President Trump - the author of the large fiscal stimulus, at full employment, which is forcing the Fed to continue hiking rates. In other countries, however, the economic backdrop is leading to varying degrees of central banker hawkishness. That ranges from actual rate hikes (Canada) to tapering of bond buying (Europe, Japan) to merely talking up the potential for rate increases (U.K., Sweden, Australia). The aggregate monetary policy stance of the major developed market central banks is now tilted more hawkishly. So it is no surprise that global government bond yield curves have been flattening and returns on risk assets have been underwhelming (Chart of the Week). Yet the reality is that all major global curves still have a positive slope, even in the U.S. and Canada where central banks have been most actively tightening, while real policy interest rates remain below zero. It would be highly unusual for yield curves to invert before real rates turned positive, especially if central bankers must move to an outright restrictive stance given tight labor markets and rising realized inflation. This implies that there is more scope for global bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months. We continue to recommend that investors maintain a defensive overall duration stance ... and to focus more on that good book on the beach and less on Trump's Twitter feed. Where To Next For The Treasury-Bund Spread? Chart 2A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend,##BR##Not A Reversal The rise in bond yields in both the U.S. and euro area seen in the first quarter of 2018 has been partly reversed since then. One of the culprits has been a stalling of the rally in oil markets, which has prompted a pause in the rise of inflation expectations on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 2). Yet another factor has been the larger decline in real bond yields, which have fallen around 20bps in the both the U.S. and euro area since the peak in mid-May (bottom two panels). A potential driver of those lower real yields is the growing concern over the potential hit to global growth from rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China (and Europe, Canada, Mexico, etc). This comes at a time when China's economic growth was already slowing and acting as a drag on global trade activity and commodity prices. There has been significant weakness in China's currency and equity market of late, which raises the specter of another broader global selloff as occurred during the Chinese turbulence of 2015/16. Yet the declines in industrial metals prices and emerging market corporate debt have been far more modest so far in 2018 (Chart 3). A big reason for that has been the more subdued performance of the U.S. dollar this year, unlike the massive surge in 2015/16 that crushed risk assets worldwide (Chart 4). A more likely driver of the recent drop in real yields in the U.S. and core Europe was the slump in euro area economic data earlier in 2018. That move not only drove yields lower, but also pushed out the market-implied timing of the first ECB rate hike (Chart 5) and drove the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to new wides. In our last Weekly Report, we updated our list of indicators in the U.S. and euro area that we have been monitoring to assess if our below-benchmark duration stance was still appropriate.1 The conclusion was that the underlying trends in growth and inflation on both sides of the Atlantic still supported higher bond yields on a cyclical basis, although the pressures were greater in the U.S. Yet at the same time, the gap between U.S. and euro area government bond yields has remained historically wide, with the 10-year Treasury-German Bund spread now sitting at 255bps - the highest level since the late 1980s. Chart 3Slowing Growth##BR##In China... Chart 4...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten##BR##Global Financial Stability Monetary policy differences have historically been the biggest driver of that spread. Today, the Fed is well into an interest rate hiking cycle that began nearly three years ago, and is now in the process of unwinding its balance sheet. Meanwhile, the ECB has been keeping policy rates at or below 0% while engaging in large-scale bond buying (Chart 6). Chart 5A Turn In European Yields##BR##On The Horizon? Chart 6Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects##BR##Monetary Policy Divergences When looking at more typical fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread, many of the cross-regional differences are already "in the price". The spread appears to have overshot relative to the three main factors that go into our Treasury-Bund spread valuation model (Chart 7): The gap between Fed and ECB policy rate The ratio of the U.S. unemployment rate to the euro area equivalent The gap between headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area The Fed's rate hikes have now widened the policy rate differential versus the ECB equivalent (the short-term repo rate) to 200bps. At the same time, the rapidly improving situation in the euro area labor market now means that the unemployment ratio has been constant over the past couple of years, while euro area inflation has also caught up a bit toward U.S. levels in recent months. Adding it all up together in our Treasury-Bund valuation model - which also includes the sizes of the Fed and ECB balance sheets to quantify the impact on yields of bond-buying programs - and the conclusion is that the current spread level of 255bps is 50bps above "fair value" (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals Chart 8UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model Importantly, fair value is still rising, primarily because of the widening policy rate differential. We have consistently argued that the true cyclical peak in the Treasury-Bund spread will occur when the Fed is done with its rate hike cycle. Yet there are opportunities to play that spread more tactically, based on shorter-term indicators. For example, the gap between the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area has been a correlated to the momentum of the Treasury-Bund spread, measured as the 13-week change of the level of the spread (Chart 9). Data surprises are now bottoming out in the euro area while they continue to drift lower in the U.S. As a result, the Treasury-Bund spread momentum has begun to fade, right in line with the narrowing of the data surprise differential. Also from a more technical perspective, the deviation of the Treasury-Bund spread from its 200-day moving average is at one of the more stretched levels of the past decade. Combined with the extended spread momentum, this suggests that the Treasury-Bund spread should expect to see a period of consolidation in the next few months (Chart 10). Chart 9Relative Data Surprises No Longer##BR##Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 10UST-Bund Spread Momentum##BR##Got To Stretched Extremes We have been recommending both a structural short U.S./long core Europe position in our model bond portfolio for over a year now. We also entered into a trade that directly played for a wider 10-year Treasury-Bund spread in our Tactical Trade portfolio. We initiated that recommendation on August 8th, 2017 when the spread was at 162bps. With the spread now at 255bps, we are now closing out that recommendation this week, taking a profit of 7% (inclusive of the gains from hedging the Bund exposure into U.S. dollars).2 At the same time, we feel that it is too early to position for a narrowing of the Treasury-Bund spread. The large U.S. fiscal stimulus will continue to put upward pressure on U.S. bond yields over the next year, both through higher U.S. inflation and the associated need for tighter Fed policy. Already, the Treasury-Bund spread reflects both the relatively larger dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 11) and the expected widening of the U.S. federal budget deficit compared to reduced deficits in the euro area (Chart 12). Much like the rise in the fair value of the Treasury-Bund spread, this suggests that there is limited downside for the spread on a more medium-term basis. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be##BR##Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... Chart 12...The Result Of Looser##BR##U.S. Fiscal Policy We are taking profits on our tactical spread based on our read of all of our relevant indicators. There is a good chance, however, that we could consider re-entering a spread widening trade on any meaningful narrowing of the spread or adjustment in our indicators. Bottom Line: The fundamental drivers of the 10-year U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread continue to point to the spread staying wide over the next 6-12 months. Yet the spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasury Market Technicals One of the overriding aspects of the U.S. Treasury market over the past few months has been the stretched technical backdrop. The combination of oversold price momentum, bearish sentiment and aggressive short positioning have helped keep yields in check, even as U.S. growth and inflation accelerate and the Fed continues to signal more future rate hikes. Back in March, we presented a study of previous episodes of an oversold U.S. Treasury market since the year 2000.3 Our goal was to determine how long it typically took for a resolution of oversold Treasury market conditions. Unsurprisingly, we concluded that the longest episodes of oversold Treasuries occurred when U.S. economic growth and core inflation were both accelerating, and vice versa. At the time of that report, all of the technical indicators that we looked at were signaling that Treasury bearishness was deeply entrenched (Chart 13). Now, four months later, there has been some change in those indicators: Chart 13UST Technical Indicators##BR##Are More Mixed Now The 10-year Treasury yield relative to its 200-day moving average: then, +43bps; now, +18bps The trailing 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index: then, -4.3%; now, -0.6% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders: then, very large underweight duration positioning; now, positioning is neutral The Market Vane index of bullish sentiment for Treasuries: then, near the bottom of the range since 2000; now, still near that same level The CFTC data on speculator positioning in 10-year U.S. Treasury futures: then, a large net short of -8% (scaled by open interest); now, still a large net short of -11%. Therefore, the message from the technical indicators is more mixed now than in March. Price momentum and duration positioning is now neutral, while sentiment and speculative positions remain stretched. The former suggests that there is scope for Treasury yields to begin climbing again, while the latter implies that there may still be room for some counter-trend short-covering Treasury rallies in the near term. In our March study, we defined the duration of each episode of an oversold Treasury market by the following conditions: The start date was when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average and the Market Vane Treasury bullish sentiment index dipped below 50; The end-date was when the yield declined below its 200-day moving average. The details of each of those episodes can be found in Table 1. This is the same table that we presented back in March, but we have now added the current episode. At 150 days in length, this is already the fourth longest period of an oversold Treasury market since 2000. Yet perhaps most surprising is the fact that Treasury yields are essentially unchanged since the start date of the current episode (March 20th, 2018). There is no other period in our study that where yields did not decline while the oversold market resolved itself. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market Perhaps this can be interpreted as a sign that there is still scope for a final short-covering Treasury rally before this current oversold episode can truly end. Yet as we concluded in our March study, it took an average of 156 days for an oversold market to be fully corrected if U.S. growth was accelerating (i.e. the ISM manufacturing index was rising) and core PCE inflation were both rising at the same time - as is currently the case (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing The longest such episode in 2003/04 lasted for 203 days before the 10-year yield fell below its 200-day moving average. Yet the second longest episode (196 days) occurred in 2013/14, and Treasury yields ended up climbing to a new cyclical high before eventually peaking. Given the underlying positive momentum in both U.S. economic growth and inflation, but with a mixed message from the technical indicators, we suspect that this current oversold episode may have further to run. Yet as we concluded back in March, and still believe today, it will prove difficult to earn meaningful returns betting on a counter-trend decline in yields this time, as any such move will likely be modest in size and lengthy in duration. Bottom Line: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains very bearish and there are large speculative short positions. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market", dated July 17th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The return on this trade is calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays 7-10-year government bond indices for the U.S. and Germany, adjusted for duration differences between the indices. The German return is hedged into U.S. dollars, as this trade was done on a currency-hedged basis. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering From Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Special Report

Highlights Rising non-OPEC production and the Trump administration's successful efforts at jawboning OPEC into increasing oil production - including a not-so-subtle threat that American protection of the Cartel's Gulf Arab producers would be withheld if production weren't ramped - will keep oil prices under pressure in 2H18. Markets could become chaotic in 2019: Iran's capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below in this Special Report written jointly by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy - cannot be dismissed. An extended closure of the Strait - our most dire scenario - could send prices on exponential trajectories: In one simulation, above $1,000/bbl. We are keeping our forecast for 2H18 Brent at $70/bbl, unchanged from June, and lowering our 2019 expectation by $2 to $75/bbl. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent. Rising geopolitical uncertainty will widen the range in which oil prices trade - i.e., it will lift volatility. Energy: Overweight. We are moving to a tactically neutral weighting, while maintaining our strategic overweight recommendation. We are closing our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread but are retaining long call-spread exposures in 2019 along the Brent forward curve. Base Metals: Neutral. Contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida copper mine are yet to be resolved. The union rejected BHP's proposal late last week, and threatened to vote for a strike unless substantial changes were made. Failure to reach a labor deal at the Escondida mine led to a 44-day strike last year, and an extension of the contract. This agreement expires at the end of this month. Precious Metals: Neutral. Increasing real rates in the U.S. and a stronger USD are offsetting safe-haven demand for gold, which is down 10% from its 2018 highs of $1360/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The Chinese agriculture ministry lowered its forecast for 2018/19 soybean imports late last week to 93.85 mm MT from 95.65 mm MT. This is in line with its adjustment to consumption this year, now forecast at 109.23 from 111.19 mm MT. Tariffs are expected to incentivize Chinese consumers to prefer alternative proteins - e.g., rapeseed - and to replace U.S. soybean imports with those from South America. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump jawboned OPEC Cartel members - particularly its Gulf Arab members - into raising production. This was accompanied with a none-too-subtle threat implying continued U.S. protection of the Gulf Arab states was at risk if oil production were not lifted.1 OPEC, particularly KSA, responded by lifting production and pledging to keep it at an elevated level. In addition, non-OPEC production growth has been particularly strong this year, and will remain so. These combined production increases will contribute to a modest rebuilding of inventories in 2H18, as markets prepare for the loss of as much as 1 MMb/d of Iranian oil exports beginning in November (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOECD Inventory##BR##Depletion Will Slow Chart 2Global Balances Will Loosen,##BR##As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Estimated 2H18 total OPEC production rose a net 130k b/d, led by a 180k b/d increase on the part of KSA, which will average just under 10.6 MMb/d in the second half of the year. Non-OPEC production for 2H18 was revised upward by 180k b/d in our balances models - based on historical data from the U.S. EIA and OPEC - led by the U.S. shales, which were up close to 700k b/d over 1Q18 levels. This led to a combined increase in global production of 310k b/d in 2H18. With demand growth remaining at 1.7 MMb/d y/y for 2018 and 2019, we expect the higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC sources to loosen physical balances in 2H18 (Chart 2 and Table 1).2 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) In and of itself, increased production will reverse some of the depletion of OECD inventories targeted by OPEC 2.0 in its effort to rebalance the market. All else equal, this would be bearish for prices. However, we are keeping our price forecast for 2H18 unchanged from last month - $70/bbl for Brent in 2H18 - and lowering our expectation for Brent to $75/bbl in 2019. This adjustment in next year's expectation reflects our belief that this round of increased production by OPEC 2.0 arguably is being undertaken specifically to rebuild storage ahead of the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. against Iran. Re-imposing sanctions unwinds a deal negotiated by the U.S. and its allies in 2015, which relaxed nuclear-related sanctions against Iran in exchange for commitments to scale back its involvement across the Middle East in the affairs of Arab states with restive Shia populations.3 The re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. against Iran has set off a round of diplomatic barbs and thrusts on both sides. President Trump declared he wanted Iran's oil exports to go to zero, which was followed by Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This set oil markets on edge, given that close to 20% of the world's oil flows through the Strait on any given day.4 Geopolitics Reasserts Itself In The Gulf Oil prices will become increasingly sensitive to geopolitical developments, particularly in the Gulf, now that the U.S. and its allies - chiefly KSA - and Iran and its allies are preparing to square off diplomatically, and possibly militarily. This will lead to a wider range in which oil will trade - i.e., we expect more significant deviations from fundamentally implied values, as markets attempt to price in highly uncertain outcomes to political events.5 Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below - will remain elevated post-sanctions being re-imposed, even if we only see threats to traffic through this most-important oil transit. Chart 3 shows that in periods when the error term of our fundamental econometric model increases, it typically coincides with higher implied volatilities. Specifically, the confidence interval around our fundamental-based price forecast widens in times of heightened uncertainty and volatility. The larger the volatility, the larger the squared deviation between our fitted Brent prices against actual prices.6 This indicates the probability of ending 2H18 exactly at our $70/bbl target is reduced as mounting upside - e.g. faster-than-expected collapse in Venezuelan crude exports, rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz or larger-than-expected Permian pipeline/production bottlenecks - and downside - e.g. escalating U.S.-Sino trade war tensions, increasing Libyan and Nigerian production - risks push the upper and lower bounds around our forecast further apart. Chart 3Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range This directly translates into a wider range in which prices will trade - uncertainty is high, and, while it is being resolved, markets will remain extremely sensitive to any information that could send prices on an alternative path (Chart 4). Chart 4Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Risks related to a closure of the Strait are not accounted for in our forecasts. However, given the magnitude of the risks implied by even the remote possibility of a closure, we expect markets will put a risk premium into prices. In an attempt to frame out price estimates from a short (10-day) and long (100-day) closure, we provide some cursory simulation results below.7 Can Iran Close The Strait Of Hormuz? The Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20% of global oil supply transits daily, is the principal risk that will keep markets hyper-vigilant going forward.8 A complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) would be the greatest disruption of oil production in history, three times more significant than the supply loss following the Islamic Revolution in 1979 (Chart 5). By our estimate, a 10-day closure at the beginning of 2H19 could pop prices by ~ $25/bbl. A 100-day closure could send prices above $1,000/bbl in our estimates. Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again Chart 5Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses So, the question naturally arises, can Iran's forces close the Strait? Iran's ability is limited by structural and military factors, but it could definitely impede traffic through the globe's most crucial energy chokepoint. There are two scenarios for the closure of the Strait: (i) Iran does so preemptively in retaliation to crippling economic sanctions; or (ii) Iran does so in retaliation to an attack against its nuclear facilities. Either scenario is possible in 2019, as the U.S. intends to re-impose sanctions against Iranian oil exports on November 9, a move that could lead to armed conflict if Iran were to retaliate (Diagram 1).9 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree SCENARIO I - Preemptive Closure In the past, Tehran has threatened to preemptively close the Strait of Hormuz whenever tensions regarding its nuclear program arose. The threats stopped in mid-2012, as U.S. and Iranian officials engaged in negotiations over the country's nuclear program. However, on July 4 of this year, Iran's nominally moderate President Hassan Rouhani pledged that Tehran would retaliate to an oil export embargo by closing the Strait. Rouhani's comments were reinforced on July 5 by the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, whose forces patrol the Strait, Mohammad Ali Jafari. Could Iran actually impede traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?10 Yes. Our most pessimistic scenario posits that Iran could close the waterway for about three or four months. This is based on three military capabilities: mines, land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and a large number of small boats for suicide-like attack waves. In our pessimistic scenario, we assume that Iran would be able to deploy about 700 mines and threaten the Strait by firing only one anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) operated via land-based batteries or ship per day, in order to prolong the threat.11 In that way, Iran could draw out the threat indefinitely. The length of closure is based on how long it would take the U.S. naval assets in the region to clear the mines, establish a Q-route - corridor within which the probability of hitting a mine is below 10% - and locate ASCM radars and batteries. The pessimistic scenario is unlikely to occur because of several countermeasures that the U.S. and its regional allies could employ - anti-mine operations, meant to clear a so-called Q route allowing safe passage of oil tankers under U.S. naval escort; punitive retaliation, which would inflict punitive damage on Iran's economy and infrastructure; and, lastly, Iran would not want to risk exposing its radar-guided anti-ship missiles to U.S. suppression of enemy air-defense (SEAD) operations that seek and destroy radars. Despite Iran's growing capability, we still posit that its forces would only be able to close the Strait of Hormuz for between three-to-four months. However, the more likely, "optimistic," scenario is that the closure itself lasts 7-10 days, while Iran then continues to threaten, but not actually close, the Strait for up to four months. It would be worth remembering that the U.S. has already retaliated against a potential closure, precisely 30 years ago. Midway through the Iran-Iraq war, both belligerents began attacking each other's tankers in the Gulf. Iran also began to attack Kuwaiti tankers after it concluded that the country was assisting with Iraq's war efforts. In response, Kuwait requested U.S. assistance and President Ronald Reagan declared in January 1987 that tankers from Kuwait would be flagged as American ships. After several small skirmishes over the following year, the USS Samuel B Roberts hit a mine north of Qatar. The mine recovered was linked to documents found by the U.S. during an attack on a small Iranian vessel laying mines earlier in 1987. The U.S. responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988. During the operation, which only lasted a day, the U.S. navy seriously damaged Iran's naval capabilities before it was ordered to disengage as the Iranians quickly retreated. Specifically, two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six gunboats were destroyed. The USS Wainwright also engaged two Iranian F-4s, forcing both to retreat after one was damaged. From this embarrassing destruction of Iran's naval assets, the country realized that conventional capabilities stood little chance against a far superior U.S. navy. As a result, Iran has strengthened its asymmetrical sea capabilities, such as the use of small vessels, and has made evident that the use of mines would be integral to its engagements with foreign navies in the Gulf. However, the switch to asymmetrical warfare means that Iran would likely threaten, rather than directly close, the Strait. From an investment perspective, the threat to shipping would have to be priced-in via higher insurance rates. According to research by the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center, the insurance premiums never rose above 7.5% of the price of vessel during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and actually hovered around 2% throughout the conflict. Rates for tankers docking in Somali ports, presumably as dangerous of a shipping mission as it gets, are set at 10% of the value of the vessel. A typical very large crude carrier (VLCC) is worth approximately $120 million. Adding the market value of two million barrels of crude would bring its value up to around $270 million at current prices. If insurance rates were to double to 20%, the insurance costs alone would add around $30 per barrel, $15 per barrel if rates stayed at the more reasonable 10%. This is without factoring in any geopolitical risk premium or direct loss of supply of Iran's output due to war. Bottom Line: Iran's military capabilities have increased significantly since the 1980s when it last threatened the shipping in the Strait. Iran has also bolstered its asymmetric capabilities since 2012, while the U.S. has largely remained the same in terms of anti-mine capabilities. If Iran had the first-mover advantage in our preemptive closure scenario, the most likely outcome would be that it could close the Strait for up to 10 days and then threaten to close it for up to four months in total. SCENARIO II - Retaliatory Closure A retaliatory closure is possible in the case of a U.S. (or Israeli) attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. Following from the military analysis of a preemptive closure, we can ascertain that a retaliatory closure would be far less effective. The U.S. would deploy all of its countermeasures to Iranian closure tactics as part of its initial attack. If Iran loses its first-mover advantage, it is not clear how it would lay the mines that are critical to closing the Strait. Iran's Kilo class submarines, the main component of a covert mine-laying operation, would be destroyed in port or hunted down in a large search-and-destroy mission that would "light up" the Strait of Hormuz with active sonar pings. The duration of the closure could therefore be insignificant, even non-existent. The only potential threat is that of Iran's ASCM capability. Iran would be able to use its ASCMs in much the same way as in the preemptive scenario, depending on the rate of fire and rate of discovery by U.S. assets. Bottom Line: It makes a big difference whether Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz preemptively or as part of a retaliation to an attack. The U.S. would, in any attack, likely target Iran's ability to retaliate against global shipping in the Persian Gulf. As such, Tehran's asymmetric advantages would be lost. Putting It All Together - Can Iran Close The Strait? Our three scenarios are presented in Table 2. Iran has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz for up to three-to-four months. That "pessimistic" scenario, however, is highly unlikely. The more likely scenarios are the "preemptive optimistic" and retaliatory scenarios. Table 2Closing The Strait Of Hormuz: Scenarios Assessing the price implications of these scenarios is extremely difficult. Even though the "preemptive optimistic" and the "retaliatory" scenarios are short-lived, up to 20% of the world's daily demand would be removed from the market in the event the Strait of Hormuz was closed. Of course, the U.S. would release barrels from its 660mm-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) - likely the full maximum of 30 million barrels authorized under law, released over 30 days for a 1 MMb/d release - and Europe would also release ~ 1 MMb/d or so from its crude and product stocks. China likely would tap its SPR as well for 500k b/d. In addition, there is ~ 2 MMb/d of spare capacity in OPEC, which could be brought on line in 30 days (once the Strait is re-opened), and delivered for at least 90 days. How and when a closure of the Strait of Hormuz occurs cannot be modeled, since, as far as prices are concerned, so much depends on when it occurs, and its duration. For this reason, and the extremely low probability we attach to any closure of the Strait, we do not include these types of simulations in our analysis of the various scenarios we include in our ensemble. That said, it is useful to frame the range implied by the scenarios above. We did a cursory check of the impact of scenarios 1 and 2 above, in which we assume 19 MMb/d flow through the Strait is lost for 10 days and 100 days due to closure by Iran in July 2019. We assume this will be accompanied by a 2 MMb/d release from various SPRs globally. In scenario 1, the 10-day closure of the Strait lifts price by $25/bbl, and is resolved in ~ 2 months, with prices returning to ~ $75/bbl for the remainder of the year. In scenario 2, the Strait is closed for 100 days, and this sends prices to $1,500/bbl in our simulation. This obviously would not stand and we would expect the U.S. and its allies - supported by the entire industrialized world - would launch a powerful offensive to reopen the Strait. This would be extremely destructive to Iran, which is why we give it such a low probability. Bottom Line: While the odds of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz are extremely low - to the point of not being explicitly modeled in our balances and forecasts - framing the possible outcomes from the scenarios considered in this report reveals the huge stakes involved. A short closure of 10 days could pop prices by $25/bbl before flows are restored to normal and inventory rebuilt, while an extended 100-day closure could send prices to $1,500/bbl or more. Because the latter outcome would result in a massive offensive against Iran - supported by oil-consuming states globally - we view this as a low-probability event. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 President Trump's tweets calling for higher oil production have consistently been directed at the original OPEC Cartel, as seen July 4: "The OPEC monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!" Since the end of 2016, we have been following the production and policy statements of OPEC 2.0, the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 We will be exploring the rising risks to our demand projections in future research. Still, we are in broad agreement with the IMF's most recent assessment of global economic growth, which remains at 3.9% p.a. Please see "The Global Expansion: Still Strong but Less Even, More Fragile, Under Threat," published July 16, 2018, on the IMF's blog. 3 We discuss this at length in the Special Report we published with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy on June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 In an apparent recognition of what it would mean for world oil markets if Iran's exports did go to zero - particularly with Venezuela so close to collapse, which could take another 800k b/d off the market - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced waivers to the sanctions would be granted, following Trump's remarks at the beginning of July. See "Pompeo says US could issue Iran oil sanctions waivers" in the July 10, 2018, Financial Times. The Trump administration, however, is keeping markets on their toes, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling the U.S. Congress, "We want people to reduce oil purchases to zero, but in certain cases, if people can't do that overnight, we'll consider exceptions." See "Iran sues US for compensation ahead of re-imposition of oil sanctions," published by S&P Global Platts on July 17, 2018, on its spglobal.com/platts website. 5 Technically, this means the confidence interval around the target is now wider, which implies high probability of going above $80/bbl as well as the probability of going under $70/bbl. Still, the 2019 risks are skewed to the upside, in our view. 6 Given that our model is based solely on a variety of fundamental variables - i.e. supply-demand-inventory - the deviations can be interpreted as movements in the risks premium/discount. 7 This exercise does not include any estimate of oil flows through KSA's East-West pipeline, and possible exports therefrom. The rated capacity of the 745-mile line is 5 MMb/d, possibly 7 MMb/d. KSA's Red Sea loading capacity and the capacity of the Suez Canal and Bab el Mandeb under stress - i.e., the volumes either can handle with a surge of oil-tanker traffic - is not considered either. 8 This is the U.S. EIA's estimate. The EIA notes that in 2015 the daily flow of oil through the Strait accounted for 30% of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids. Natural gas markets also could be affected by a closure: In 2016, more than 30% of global liquefied natural gas trade transited the Strait. Please see "Three important oil trade chokepoints are located around the Arabian Peninsula," published August 4, 2017, at eia.gov. 9 We encourage our clients to read our analysis of potential Iranian retaliatory strategies, penned by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Analysis of Iran's military strategy and U.S. counterstrategy used in this paper relies on research from three heavily cited papers. Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press are skeptical of Iran's ability to close the Strait in their paper titled "Protecting 'The Prize': Oil and the National Interest," published in Security Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, 2010. Caitlin Talmadge gives Iran's capabilities far more credit in a paper titled "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz," published in International Security Vol. 33, No. 1, Summer 2008. Eugene Gholz also led a project at the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law that published an extensive report titled "The Strait of Hormuz: Political-Military Analysis of Threats to Oil Flows." 11 In the Strauss Center study, the most likely number is 814 mines, if Iran had a two-week period to do so covertly. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018