Global

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

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

Highlights The fundamental case to buy the dollar and sell non-U.S. risk assets is currently extremely obvious. This suggests that investors likely have already placed their bets. As such, the case for a counter-trend correction espoused last week has grown. The impact of tariffs on the dollar seems more dependent on the dollar's momentum than economics. As a result, getting a handle on how the greenback's momentum will evolve seems crucial. The behavior of Chinese assets, various currency pairs and other assets suggests the dollar may experience a significant loss of momentum that could prompt a correction of DXY to 92. The Canadian dollar seems the best place to take advantage of this move. Feature The currency market does not feel right. We do not mean that it is sick; however, we cannot help but feel a great level of discomfort right now. The economic environment clearly supports a stronger dollar. Global liquidity is weak, global growth has weakened, the yuan has been very soft and trade wars are on the front page of newspapers as the Trump administration has announced an additional $200 billion of potential new tariffs on Chinese exports. Hence, the bullish-dollar negative-EM story seems like a "no brainer." However, there rarely, if ever, is such thing as a "no-brainer" in the FX market. When fundamentals point as obviously in one direction as they do today, the narrative is likely to be appreciated by the vast majority of market participants. As a result, the bets are likely to have been placed. This risk seems especially acute today. Hence, we recommend investors temporarily move away from the dollar-bullish thesis. Occam's Razor At first glance, the recent wave of strength in the dollar seems to have been prompted by the new wave of trade war intensification. While China has not announced new tariffs on the U.S., the renminbi has continued to depreciate, evocating memories harkening back to August 2015 and the emerging market calamity that culminated in January 2016. While the risk created by a lower CNY is real, the dollar has had a schizophrenic approach to pricing in the impact of tariffs. In the first half of 2018, announcements of tariffs were greeted by a weaker dollar. However, since May, the same type of news has been greeted by a stronger dollar. An economic argument can be made as to why this is the case. In early 2018, global rates were still at rock-bottom levels, with the GDP-weighted average policy rate in the G-10 outside the U.S. being at 0.2%. Moreover, U.S. inflation was still tepid, but the fed funds rate was 1.5%. As result, if tariffs were to slow growth, only the Fed had room to ease. Moreover, since as of early 2018 global growth still looked to be on the upswing, it was argued that global monetary conditions were still accommodative enough than non-U.S. growth would barely be affected. Today, global growth is already showing signs of sagging, with weakness in Korean exports vindicating this analysis (Chart I-1). This means that growth outside the U.S. is perceived as more vulnerable to tariffs than was the case back in the first quarter of this year, especially as the amount of tariffs imposed on the world has grown. While the U.S. will also suffer from these tariffs, it is in better position to weather their impact. As such, since FX determination goes beyond just rate differentials and is also affected by growth differentials, the greater risk to non-U.S. growth is what is lifting the dollar. This narrative makes sense and is probably playing a role in the dollar's strength. However, we suspect something much simpler is exerting an even greater influence on the greenback: momentum. As we have long been arguing, the dollar is the epitome of momentum currencies in the G-10 (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-1Global Growth Slowdown Chart I-2USD Is A Momentum Currency Among all the momentum strategies we have tested, the one that works best at capturing the momentum continuation effect in the USD is tracking crossovers of the 20-day and 130-day moving averages. When the 20-day moving average is above the 130-day one, the dollar has an upward bias that is tradeable, and vice versa when the faster moving average lies below the slower one. Through most of 2017 all the way until May 9, 2018, the 20-day moving average for the dollar was in fact underneath the 130-day moving average. However, since May 10, it has been above (Chart I-3). Here is where things get interesting. When the moving average crossover strategy was sending a bearish signal for the greenback, tariff announcements would weaken the dollar; but since the crossover has been in bullish territory, tariff announcements have been lifting the dollar (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Favorable Momentum ##br##Backdrop On The Dollar Chart I-4Momentum Drives The Dollar's ##br##Reaction To Tariffs What does this mean for investors going forward? So long as the dollar is in a bullish momentum configuration, trade announcements will support the greenback. However, on this front we could expect a period of temporary calm after the storm (a low-conviction call, to be clear). The Trump team just announced an enormous tariffs package, Europe and Canada have put in place their own retaliation tariffs, the NATO meeting is over and the CNY has fallen by 6.4% since April 11. For the dollar to strengthen further, the onus thus falls back on momentum itself and market signals. But, as we highlighted last week, we are concerned that the dollar momentum could actually weaken from current levels. Bottom Line: Trade war risks seem to have been supporting the USD and weakened EM assets. However, the picture is not that clear-cut. Until May, moving average crossovers for the dollar were sending a bearish signal; during that time frame, tariff announcements were welcomed by a weak dollar. Since May, the dollar's moving average crossovers have been sending a bullish signal; since that time, tariff announcements have been welcomed by a strong dollar, which in turn has weighed on non-U.S. risk assets. Thus, with a likely period of calm on the trade front in the coming weeks, the outlook for momentum is likely to determine the trend in the dollar and in the price of risk assets outside the U.S. Reading The Market Tea Leaves At this point, having a sense of how momentum is likely to evolve is crucial. This is where that sinking feeling comes into play. Fundamentals seem to give a clear picture, but when the picture is so clear, a trap often lies ahead. The first clue to this trap comes from the Zew expectations survey. The Zew is a survey of market professionals, asking them their view on growth, and so on. These views are likely to be reflected in current market pricing. What is interesting is that this global growth survey has been tanking violently. The perception is thus that global growth is decelerating fast. Indeed, global growth has slowed, but as the global PMI illustrates - a variable that moves coincidently with the global Zew - it is not falling nearly as fast as expectations are (Chart I-5). This creates a risk for the dollar bulls - bulls who need further growth weakness to justify additional dollar strength. China is at the epicenter of the global growth slowdown. Interestingly, the Shanghai Composite Index is already testing the lows it experienced in early 2016 (Chart I-6). However, the Chinese economic picture is not as dire as was the case back then. PPI inflation is at 4.6% today, while it hit -5.9% at its nadir in November 2015. Thus, real interest rates faced by borrowers are 9.9% lower than they were back then. Moreover, the Li-Keqiang index of industrial activity is rebounding smartly. Finally, while FX reserves are contracting, they are not falling at the pace of US$108 billion a month endured in the worst months of 2015, which means that liquidity conditions in China are not experiencing the same tightening as back then. In fact, the Chinese repo rate is currently falling, supporting this notion (Chart I-7). This combination of economic indicators and financial market prices suggests that ample bad news is already priced into Chinese assets and thus China-linked assets for now. Chart I-5Analysts Know Growth Is Slowing Chart I-6Chinese Shares As Sick As In Early 2016 Chart I-7Some Reflation In China? Chinese shares expressed in USD-terms are also interesting. Not only are they re-testing their 2016 lows, but by the end of June their RSI oscillator had hit more deeply oversold levels than in January 2016 (Chart I-8). Very saliently, despite this week's announcement of a potential $200 billion of new tariffs imposed on China, Chinese shares expressed in U.S. dollars are not making new lows, and the RSI is slowly rebounding. This resilience is surprising, considering the magnitude of the bad news. Copper too is interesting. It seems that Dr. Copper has had a bit of a hangover lately, as its response speed has slowed considerably. Copper used to be a very reliable leading indicator, but since 2015 it seems to have become a coincident indicator of EM equities (Chart I-9). The recent 16% decline in the price of copper seems to be a catch-up to the weakness already evident in EM assets and EM currencies more than an early signal of additional problems to come for these markets. In fact, it may even indicate an intermediate capitulation in the price of these assets. Chart I-8Chinese Shares In USD: A Rebound Soon? Chart I-9Dr. Copper Is Hungover Other than these assets directly linked to China, since the end of June Treasury yields have also not been able to fall lower, and have proven very resilient in the face of the latest wave of CNY weakness and Trump tariffs (Chart I-10, top panel). Additionally, the euro/yen exchange rate, which is normally very levered to global growth conditions, has not only been rallying but breaking out of a downward trend in place since the beginning of 2018 (Chart I-10, second panel). Moreover, the extraordinarily pro-cyclical AUD/JPY cross bottomed in March and looks barely affected by the recent tumult (Chart 10, third panel). Finally, the growth-sensitive EUR/CHF is currently also strengthening, not weakening (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The behavior of all these market prices is inconsistent with an imminent new upswing in the dollar. The behavior of these variables is instead consistent with the movement of our favorite leading indicator of global growth: EM carry trades. We have used the EM carry trade to flag risks to global growth that have gripped the dollar and non-U.S. risk assets in recent months. However, despite the bad news piled onto the global economy, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen seems to be trying to form a bottom (Chart I-11). This could indicate that we may be in for a period of temporary stabilization in global growth - a phenomenon that would weigh on the dollar's momentum. Without this ally, the dollar should correct meaningfully and non-U.S. risk assets should stage a rally. When thinking of a target for the dollar, a correction toward 92 on the DXY, implying a rebound of just under 1.20 on EUR/USD, seems very likely. At these levels, it will be time to re-evaluate whether the thesis we espoused last week - that this correction is a counter-trend move - is still valid or not. Also, we would expect commodity currencies to benefit even more than the euro in the context of this correction. Commodity currencies are especially levered to China, and Chinese stocks seem well positioned for a significant rebound. Moreover, as Chart I-12 illustrates, commodity currencies have been stronger than the relative performance of Swedish stocks vis-à-vis U.S. ones suggests, implying some underlying support. Finally, the yen and Swiss franc should prove the greatest losers in this environment. Chart I-10Despite Bad News, These Pro-Cylical Prices Are Resilient Chart I-11Stabilization In EM Carry Trades Chart I-12Important Divergence In terms of factors we continue to monitor, the price of gold remains a key variable. While the trend line we flagged last week has been re-tested, the yellow metal has not been able to punch through it. Meanwhile, EM bonds and junk bonds too have not suffered much in the face of the recent tariffs, and the rebound that has materialized since early July still seems in place. If any of these development change, the rebound in EM assets will peter off, and the dollar greenback will continue its march higher without much of a pause. Bottom Line: Fundamentals are making an extremely clear case that the dollar will strengthen further in the coming months, and that non-U.S. risk assets are in for a dive. However, when fundamentals are as clear as they are today, especially after the market moves we have seen in recent months, they rarely translate into the price action one would anticipate. The behavior of Chinese shares, of bond yields and of various currency pairs, including EM carry-trades, suggests instead that the dollar is likely to lose momentum. However, the life blood of any dollar rally is this very momentum. As such, we worry that despite apparently massively favorable fundamentals, the dollar could experience a correction toward 92 before being able to move higher as the fundamentals currently suggest. Commodity currencies could enjoy the greatest dividend from this counter-trend move. A Few Words On The CAD The Bank of Canada was anticipated to deliver a dovish hike this week, increasing rates to 1.5%, but also downgrading the path of additional expected rates. The BoC did deliver a hike, but it stuck to its guns and did not temper future interest rate expectations. Within the BoC's analytical framework, this move makes sense. Despite incorporating both tariff and NAFTA risks into its forecast, the BoC has barely changed its growth expectations for Canada. Essentially, the hit to Canadian exports will be balanced out by the hit to Canadian imports created by Canada's own retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. This means that the lack of excess capacity in the Canadian economy remains as salient a problem for the BoC as it was before NAFTA risks entered the picture. This warrants higher rates. The economic backdrop seems to indeed be in agreement with the BoC. This summer's Business Outlook Survey showed that Canadian businesses continue to find it increasingly difficult to meet demand and that labor shortages are still prevalent and becoming more intense, highlighting the upside risk to wages (Chart I-13). Higher wages are thus likely to buffet Canadian households from the risk created by higher policy rates. Moreover, higher wages also stoke inflationary pressures, while core inflation is already at target. In this environment, a real short rate at -0.4% makes little sense. The CAD looks like the best vehicle to take advantage of a rebound in commodity currencies. The CAD is currently trading at a deep discount to its fair value (Chart I-14) and the Canadian dollar proved surprisingly resilient in the face of a 7% decline in Brent prices on Wednesday. Additionally, speculators have accumulated large short bets on the Canadian currency. With the BoC being the only central bank among G-10 commodity producing nations that is lifting rates, this would create an additional impetus for the loonie to rebound and outperform other commodity currencies. Chart I-13Canadian Capacity Pressures ##br##Point To A Hawkish BoC Chart I-14Loonie Is ##br##Cheap Bottom Line: The BoC has resumed its hiking campaign because the economy is at full capacity and inflationary pressures continue to build up, while monetary policy remains too accommodative. As a result, the cheap CAD currently seems the best G-10 currency to take advantage of the correction in the USD. We are selling USD/CAD this week. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was positive: JOLTS Job Openings climbed to 6.638 mn in May, beating expectations; Headline producer prices increased by 3.4% annually, the most in 11 years; Core producer prices increased by 2.8% in annual terms; Core consumer prices increased by 2.3% annually in June, in line with expectations, however, the month-on-month number was a bit soft; Continuing jobless claims underperformed, while initial jobless claims came in lower than expected. New threats from the White House of tariffs for USD 200 billion worth of Chinese imports circulated the media networks. At this point in time, almost 90% of U.S. imports from China are under threat of tariffs. The risks surrounding these tariffs going forward is likely to add substantially more pressure on emerging markets and commodity currencies down the road. Meanwhile, the U.S. is experiencing a robust economy with higher inflation supported by more expensive raw materials, higher lumber and housing prices, and a tight trucking market. This should keep the Fed in line with its hawkish bias, and the greenback afloat, even if on the short-run, much of this seem well discounted, raising the risk of a tactical correction in the DXY. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: The German trade balance increased to EUR 20.3 billion on the back of a 1.8% annual export growth and a 0.7% annual import growth; The Sentix Investor Confidence increased to 12.1 in July from 9.3 in June, and beating the expected 8.2; French and Italian industrial output both underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2% and 0.7% in monthly terms, respectively; The Economic Sentiment from the ZEW Survey came in less than expected for both Germany and the euro area, at -24.7 and -18.7 respectively; A slight misunderstanding between policymakers at the ECB emerged as the interpretation of interest rates being held "through the summer of 2019" proved contentious. Some officials say an increase as early as July 2019 is possible, while others rule out a move until autumn. We believe the latter is more likely, given the euro's negative reaction to the U.S.' announcement of additional tariffs of USD 200 billion imports from China, and also due to the current slowdown within the common area. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been positive: Machinery orders yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 16.5%. Moreover, labor cash earnings yearly growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.1%. Finally, housing starts yearly growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3%. USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1.4% this week. Even amid the increasing trade tensions and risk-off sentiment, the yen has been unable to rally against the dollar, as the momentum for the greenback is too strong for the yen to overcome. Overall, we favor the yen over the euro, however if the dollar were to correct at current levels, EUR/JPY would likely suffer in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Manufacturing production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1%. Moreover, Industrial production yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 0.8%. However, mortgage approvals outperformed expectations, coming in at 64.526 thousand. Finally, Markit Services PMI also surprised positively, coming in at 55.1. GBP/USD has remained flat this week. Overall, we expect cable to continue to fall, as the dollar should continue its upward momentum for the time being. That being said, on the remainder of 2018, the pound will probably outperform the euro, as the U.K. is less exposed to the effects of Chinese tightening than Europe. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: NAB Business Confidence and Conditions both underperformed expectations, coming in at 6 and 15 respectively; Westpac Consumer Confidence increase to 3.9% in July from 0.3%; Home Loans grew by 1.1%, much better than the expected -1.9%. The Aussie sold off substantially as the U.S. threatened China with further tariffs amounting to USD 200 bn worth of goods. Adding to the sell-off were copper prices, which fell by almost 3%, also triggered by the tariff announcement. Furthermore, as the Australian economy remains mired in slack, the RBA is unlikely to hike in an environment with no real wage growth. As such, the AUD is unlikely to see much durable upside this year and is likely to lag other commodity currencies in the event of a dollar correction. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Even if it can rebound on the back of USD correction, we expect this currency to ultimately fall, given that the current environment of trade tensions and Chinese tightening will weigh on high yielding currencies like the NZD. Additionally, the policies implemented by the new government like lower immigration and a dual mandate will structurally lower the neutral rate in New Zealand, which will create further downside on the NZD. However, the NZD should outperform the AUD cyclically, as Australia is more exposed to a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle, given that copper has a higher beta than dairy products. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was decent: Housing starts grew by 248,100 year-on-year, beating expectations of 210,000; Building permits increased by 4.7% in monthly terms. The Bank of Canada this week hiked interest rates to 1.5%. The Bank displayed quite a hawkish stance in its statement and Monetary Policy report, noting a stronger than expected U.S. economy, high export growth, robust inflation, and a tight labor market. In addition, the Bank incorporated the newly implemented tariffs into its policy function. Nevertheless, recent comments by Governor Poloz imply a "data dependent" approach, which is consistent with policy responses to internal inflationary pressures. We therefore expect the CAD to continue to outperform all G10 currencies except USD. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The KOF leading indicator outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. Moreover, the SVME PMI also outperformed expectations, coming in at 61.6. However, the unemployment rate underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.6%. Finally, headline inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. EUR/CHF has been flat since last week. Overall, we expect this cross to continue to go up, given that the SNB will keep intervening in the currency markets to keep the franc low enough for the economy to reach the central bank inflation mandate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.8%. Moreover, headline inflation surprised positively, coming in at 2.6%, while core inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. Finally, registered unemployment, came in at 2.2%, in line with expectations. USD/NOK has gone up by roughly 0.6% this week. While it has short-term downside, we continue to be cyclically bullish on this cross, as the upside to oil prices is limited at this point, while a tightening fed should continue to put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. That being said, the NOK will likely outperform the AUD and the NZD, given that the constrained supply of oil will help it to outperform other commodities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The minutes from the July meeting highlighted some reservation by officials given the current economic background. The forecast is that slow rate rises will be initiated towards the end of the year. However, the majority of the Executive Board emphasized that monetary policy proceeds cautiously with hikes, given the volatile development of the exchange rate and the increased risks associated with Italy and trade protectionism. The majority also advocated for the extension of the mandate that facilitates foreign exchange intervention. However, Governors Ohlsson and Flodén argued against this view, even supporting hikes earlier as inflation is already at target. The SEK is very cheap on several valuation metrics, and thus is ripe for an up move, which is likely when the majority of the Riksbank officials aligns with a hawkish view. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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

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

Special Report

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

Special Report

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

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again Highlights Housing is the main channel through which changes in U.S. monetary policy affect the real economy. The U.S. housing sector is in good shape, which means that the Fed will be able to raise rates more than the market anticipates. The Fed's tightening efforts are coming at a time when cyclical factors are raising the neutral rate of interest. Higher U.S. rates will push up the dollar, which will adversely affect emerging markets. Stay overweight developed market equities relative to their EM peers, while underweighting deep cyclical sectors relative to defensives. Feature U.S. Housing Back In The Spotlight The Global Financial Crisis began in the U.S. and quickly spread to the rest of the world. The U.S. housing market was at the epicenter of the last crisis and it could be the main source of global financial turbulence once again. Unlike ten years ago however, the problem is not that U.S. housing has become too vulnerable to a downturn. Rather, the problem, as we explain below, is that housing has become too resilient. Housing starts were slow to recover after the Great Recession. To this day, they are still 40% below their 2006 peak (Chart 1). As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate stands at only 1.5%, the lowest level since 2001. Mortgage lenders remain guarded. The ratio of mortgage debt-to-disposable income is 31 percentage points below where it stood in 2007. Mortgage-servicing costs, expressed as a share of disposable income, are near all-time lows. FICO scores among new borrowers are well above pre-crisis levels. The Urban Institute's Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, remains in extremely healthy territory (Chart 2). Chart 1No Oversupply Of U.S. Homes Chart 2Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Housing And The Monetary Transmission Mechanism Chart 3Residential Investment Collapsed ##br##In Response To Higher Interest Rates##br## In The Early 80s... While Business Investment ##br##Was Barely Affected Housing is the main channel through which the Federal Reserve affects the real economy. When the Fed hiked rates in the early 1980s, residential investment collapsed but business investment barely contracted (Chart 3). "Housing is the business cycle," as Ed Leamer likes to say. To quote Leamer's timely 2007 Jackson Hole paper:1 Of the components of GDP, residential investment offers by far the best early warning sign of an oncoming recession. Since World War II we have had eight recessions preceded by substantial problems in housing and consumer durables. Housing did not give an early warning of the Department of Defense Downturn after the Korean Armistice in 1953 or the Internet Comeuppance in 2001, nor should it have. By virtue of its prominence in our recessions, it makes sense for housing to play a prominent role in the conduct of monetary policy. Neutral Rate: Structural Versus Cyclical Chart 4Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots The market is pricing in only 90 basis points in rate hikes between now and the end of 2020 (Chart 4). Yet, if U.S. housing is in as good shape as it appears, what is stopping the Fed from hiking rates much more than investors currently anticipate? The answer, one presumes, is that most investors share Larry Summers' view that the neutral rate of interest is very low. We have a great deal of sympathy for Summers' position. In fact, we ourselves have argued many times that a variety of secular factors are pushing down the neutral rate of interest. These include slower potential GDP growth, the shift to a capital-lite economy, and high levels of income inequality. That said, it is critical to distinguish between the secular and cyclical determinants of the neutral rate. While secular factors are pushing down the neutral rate, cyclical factors are pushing it up. Credit And Household Wealth On The Upswing Credit is one such cyclical factor. Private credit is now growing faster than GDP. The ratio of nonfinancial private debt-to-GDP has increased by an average of 1.2 percentage points during the past three years, which is close to its historic trend (Chart 5). Not all the new credit is used to finance domestic spending - some of it can flow into imports as well as the purchase of financial assets - but if one assumes that every additional dollar of credit boosts domestic demand by 50 cents, today's pace of credit growth is adding 0.6% of GDP to aggregate demand relative to a situation where the ratio of credit-to-GDP is stable.2 In addition, housing and equity wealth have been rising much more quickly than GDP. Household real estate wealth fell from a peak of 182% of GDP in 2006 to 115% of GDP in 2012. It has since clawed its way back to 142% of GDP, equivalent to where it stood in 2002. Equity wealth reached nearly 150% of GDP earlier this year, on par with the prior peak set in 2000. Historically, there has been a robust relationship between the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income and the personal savings rate (Chart 6). At present, the former stands at an all-time high. This helps explain today's low savings rate. All things equal, a lower savings rate implies more desired spending which, in turn, implies a higher neutral rate of interest.3 Chart 5Rising Household Credit And Wealth Chart 6High Net Worth Explains Today's Low Savings Rate Loose Fiscal Policy Warrants A Higher Neutral Rate U.S. fiscal policy has also become extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit will reach 4.2% of GDP in 2019, a deterioration from a deficit of 1.7% of GDP in 2015. That is more accommodative than Japan, which is set to have a deficit of 2.7% of GDP next year; or the euro area, which is expected to record a surplus of 0.8% of GDP (Chart 7). Assuming a fiscal multiplier of one, fiscal policy will add a whopping 5% more to aggregate demand in the U.S. than in the euro area next year. If one combines this fact with all the other reasons we have listed for why the neutral rate is higher in the U.S. than the euro area, the market's expectation that the ECB will be hard-pressed to raise rates by very much over the next few years is probably not far from the mark.4 An Overheated Economy Will Lift The Neutral Rate The fact that the U.S. jobless rate has fallen below most estimates of full employment means that the Fed may have to bring rates above their neutral level for a while to cool the economy. An overheated economy may also push up the neutral rate itself, at least temporarily. Chart 8 shows that labor's share of income rose during the late 1990s, as businesses were forced to pay higher wages to attract workers. Workers tend to spend more of every dollar of income than companies. Thus, any shift in the distribution of income towards the former raises aggregate demand. Chart 7U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative Than Abroad Chart 8Tight Labor Market And Rising Labor Share Of Income: ##br##A Replay Of The 1990s? Today, employers are complaining about a "shortage" of qualified workers. While the business press usually takes such comments at face value, the word "shortage" is highly misleading. Except in a few isolated cases, the number of workers a company employs is much smaller than the number of qualified workers it could theoretically hire. Even the internet giants compete for the same well-educated, tech-savvy workers. When companies say they cannot find good workers, what they usually mean is that they do not want to raise wages to entice good workers to move from competing firms. Fortunately for potential job-switchers, that is starting to change. The difference between wage growth among job switchers and job stayers in the Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker has risen to close to where it was in 2000 (Chart 9). Surveys suggest that companies are increasingly willing to raise wages (Chart 10). Higher wages and falling unemployment will boost spending, raise consumer confidence, and probably further supercharge the housing market. Chart 9Things Are Perking Up For Job Switchers Chart 10Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Investment Considerations The 30-year U.S. prime mortgage rate has risen from a low of 3.78% last September to 4.55% at present, but still remains more than 2.5 percentage points below where it stood in 2006. In real terms, today's mortgage rate is significantly lower than the average rate since 1980 (Chart 11). For the first time in a decade, the Federal Reserve wants to slow GDP growth to prevent the economy from overheating. This means the Fed must tighten financial conditions. If housing does not buckle as the Fed raises rates, the tightening in financial conditions must come through a stronger dollar, higher corporate borrowing costs, and lower equity prices. We remain long the dollar and recently downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral. We also recommended that clients cut exposure to credit. Chart 12 shows that a rising dollar usually corresponds to wider high-yield corporate bond spreads. Chart 11U.S. Mortgage Rates Are Still Low Chart 12Rising Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider High-Yield Spreads The rest of the world will feel the repercussions of Fed tightening, perhaps even more so than the U.S. itself. Emerging market equities almost always fall when U.S. financial conditions are tightening (Chart 13). One can believe that EM stocks will go up; one can also believe that the Fed will do its job and tighten financial conditions in order to prevent the U.S. economy from boiling over. One cannot believe that both these things will happen at the same time. As a share of GDP, dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets is now back to late-1990s levels (Chart 14). Local-currency debt has also mushroomed (Chart 15). This puts emerging market policymakers in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to hurt domestic borrowers by hiking rates or keeping rates low and risking a steep devaluation of their currencies. Neither outcome would be good for EM assets. As such, equity investors should overweight developed market stocks over their EM peers. An underweight in global cyclical sectors relative to defensives is also appropriate at this juncture. Chart 13Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions ##br##Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Chart 14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 15EM Local Credit Is High Too Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). Thus, credit growth affects GDP and, by extension, the change in credit growth (the so-called credit impulse) affects GDP growth. 3 Conceptually, one can see the relationship between the savings rate and the neutral rate of interest in the Solow Growth Model. For example, the neutral real rate of interest, r*, in the Model is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the savings rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. An increase in the savings rate reduces the neutral rate. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The U.S. Needs A Stronger Dollar," dated May 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of June 29, 2018. The model has reduced weights in Italy, the U.S., the Netherlands and France to beef up weights in Spain, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Germany. After these adjustments, Australia is now upgraded to overweight from neutral and Italy is downgraded to neutral from overweight, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 34 bps in June, largely driven by the Level 2 model which outperformed its benchmark by 87 bps. The Level 1 model performed in line with its benchmark in June. Since going live, Level 2 and Level 1 have outperformed their respective benchmarks by 171 bps and 5bps, resulting in overall model outperformance of 47 bps. 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 June 30, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Following our Quarterly Update that was released yesterday, the model corroborates the defensive stance with an aggregate underweight of 5.8% in cyclical sectors. The switch to a defensive mode was driven by a weaker growth outlook. The upgraded sectors were consumer staples and health care. Additionally, the model has turned more negative on the two largest sectors - financials and technology. Resources-based sectors remain unattractive on the back of weaker growth outlook. 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.

Recommended Allocation Risks to equities and credit are now evenly balanced. We downgrade both to neutral. We are worried that desynchronized growth will further push up the dollar, damaging emerging markets, especially since U.S. inflation will remove the Fed "put". The trade war is nowhere near over, and China shows signs of slowing growth. To de-risk, we raise U.S. equities to overweight, cut the euro zone to neutral, and increase our underweight in EM. We move overweight in cash, rather than fixed income because, with inflation still rising, we see U.S. 10-year rates at 3.3% by year-end. We turn more cautious on equity sectors (reducing the pro-cyclicality of our recommendations by raising consumer staples and cutting materials) and suggest less pro-risk tilts for alternative assets, shifting to hedge funds and away from private equity. Overview Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral Since last December we have been advising risk-averse clients, who prioritize capital preservation, to turn cautious, but suggested that professional fund managers who need to maximize quarterly performance stay invested in risk assets. With U.S. equities returning 3% in the first half of the year and junk bonds 0% (versus -1% for U.S. Treasury bonds), that was probably a correct assessment. Now, however, our analysis indicates that the risk/reward trade-off has deteriorated. Although we still do not expect a global recession until 2020, risks to the global equity bull market have increased. The return outlook is asymmetrical: a last-year bull market "melt-up" could give 15-20% upside, but in bear markets over the past 50 years global equities have seen peak-to-trough declines of 25-60% (Table 1). We think it better to turn cautious too early. A key to successful asset allocation is missing the big drawdowns - but getting the timing of these right is a near impossibility. Table 1How Much Stocks Fall In Bear Markets Chart 1Growth Is Becoming More Desynchronized What are the risks we are talking about? Global growth is slowing and becoming less synchronized (Chart 1). Fiscal stimulus and a high level of confidence among businesses are keeping U.S. growth strong, with GDP set to grow by close to 3% this year and S&P 500 earnings by 20%. But the euro zone and Japan have weakened, and these growing divergences are likely to push the dollar up further, which will cause more trouble in emerging markets. EM central banks are reacting either by raising rates to defend their currencies (which will hurt growth) or by staying on hold (which risks significant inflation). With the U.S. on the verge of overheating, the Fed will need to prioritize the fight against inflation. Lead indicators of core inflation suggest it is likely to continue to rise (Chart 2). The FOMC's key projections seem incompatible with each other: it sees GDP growth at 2.7% this year (well above trend), but unemployment barely falling further, bottoming at 3.6% by end-2018 (from 3.8% now) and core PCE inflation peaking at 2.1% (now: 2.0%). A further rise in inflation means that the Fed "put option" will expire: even if there were a global risk-off event, the Fed might not be able to put tightening on hold. It will take only one or two more hikes for Fed policy to be restrictive - something we have previously flagged as a key warning signal (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Inflation Could Pick Up Further Chart 3Fed Policy Is Close To Being Restrictive There is no end in sight for the trade war. President Trump is unlikely to back down on imposing further tariffs on China, since the tough stance is proving popular with his support base. On the other hand, President Xi Jinping would lose face by giving in to U.S. demands. BCA's geopolitical strategists warn that we are not at peak pessimism, and do not rule out even a military dimension.1 China is unlikely to roll out stimulus, as it did in 2015. With the authorities focused on structural reform, for example debt deleveraging, the pain threshold for stimulus is higher than in the past. Recent moves such as reductions in banks' reserve requirement have had little impact on effective interest rates (Chart 4). More likely, China might engineer a weakening of the RMB, as it did in 2015. There are signs that it is already doing so (Chart 5). This would exacerbate political tensions. Chart 4China Has Not Eased Monetary Conditions... Chart 5...But It Might Be Depreciating The RMB As we explain in detail in the pages that follow, with risk now two-way, we cut our weighting in global equities to neutral. We are not going underweight since global economic growth remains above trend, and corporate earnings will continue to grow robustly (though no faster than analysts are already forecasting). We see upside risk if the Fed were to allow an overshoot of inflation amid strong growth. If the concerns highlighted above cause a 15% correction in equity markets - triggering the Fed to go on hold - we would be inclined to move back overweight (having in mind a scenario like 1987 or 1998, where a sell-off led to a last-year bull-market rally). More likely, however, we will move underweight at the end of the year, when recession signals, such as an inverted yield curve, appear. We have shifted our detailed recommendations to line up with this de-risking. We move overweight U.S. equities (which are lower beta, and where unhedged returns should benefit from a stronger dollar). We keep our overweight on Japan, since the Bank of Japan remains the last major central bank in fully accommodative mode. We increase our underweight in EM equities. Among sectors, we reduce pro-cyclicality by cutting materials to underweight and raising consumer staples to overweight. We remain underweight fixed income, since inflationary pressures point to the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield moving up to 3.3% before the end of this cycle. We remain short duration and continue to prefer inflation-linked securities over nominal bonds. Within fixed income, we cut corporate credit to neutral, in line with our de-risking. Finally, we recommend that investors move into cash rather than bonds, though we understand that, especially for European investors, this may mean accepting a small negative return.2 Still puzzled how markets may pan out over the next 12 months? Then join BCA's annual Conference in Toronto this September, where I will be chairing a panel on asset allocation, featuring two experienced Chief Investment Officers, Erin Browne of UBS Asset Management, and Norman Villamin of Union Bancaire Privée. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking How To Overweight Cash? Chart 6Sometimes Cas Is The Only Answer BCA's call to start to derisk portfolios includes a new overweight in cash. This is logical since, historically, cash often outperformed both equities and bonds early in a downturn, when growth was starting to falter (bad for equities) but inflation was still rising (bad for bonds) - though this last happened in 1994 (Chart 6, panel 1). Currently, a move to cash is easy for U.S. investors, who can invest in three-month Treasury bills yielding 1.9%, or USD money market funds, some of which offer just over 2%. But it is much harder for investors in the euro area, where three-month German government bills yield -0.55%. Also, in Japan cash yields -0.17% and in Switzerland -0.73%. Some European investors will be tempted to go into U.S. cash. Given our view of dollar appreciation over the next six months, this should pay off. But it clearly is risky, should we be wrong and the dollar decline. As theory predicts, the cost of hedging the U.S. dollar exposure wipes out any advantage (since three-month euro-dollar forwards are 2.7% lower on an annualized basis than EURUSD spot). Some investors will have to put up with a small negative return in nominal terms in order to (largely) protect their capital. More imaginative European fund managers might be able to come up with schemes to get cash-like returns but with a positive return. For example, Danish mortgage bonds yield 1.8% (in Danish krone, which is largely pegged to the euro) with little risk. U.S. mortgage-backed securities offer yields well over 3%, which should give a positive return after hedging costs (and relatively low risk, given the robust state of the U.S. housing market) - panel 3. Carefully-selected global macro hedge funds can give attractive Libor-plus returns.3 We still see attractiveness of catastrophe bonds,4 which have a high yield and no correlation to the economic cycle. How Seriously Should We Take The Risk Of A Trade War? Is this a full-blown trade war? The answer is not yet. However, the risk is rising that the current spat will turn into one. President Trump has escalated tensions further by indicating that a 10% tariff would be placed on $200 billion of Chinese imports, in addition to the 25% tariff on $50 billion of imports announced in March and to be implemented on July 6. Trump's incentive to escalate the conflict is that a tough trade policy plays well with his support base (Chart 7). Ever since the trade issue hit the headlines early this year, his approval ratings have been on the rise. This means that he is unlikely to back down at least until the mid-term elections in November. Xi Jinping is also unlikely, for his own political reasons, to give in to U.S. demands. But China's retaliation will most likely come through non-tariff actions, since its imports from the U.S. total only about $130 billion (compared to $500 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S.). It could look to restrict imports, for example via quotas, or cause extra bottlenecks for U.S. businesses operating in China. Additionally, it could threaten to sell some of its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, or devalue the RMB. As Chart 8 shows, the RMB has already weakened against the dollar this year (though this was mainly due to the dollar's overall strength). There are suggestions that China might adjust the currency basket that it targets for the RMB, for example by adding more Asian currencies, to allow further depreciation against the dollar. Chart 7 Chart 8Sharp Rise In RMB This Year It is hard, then, to see a smooth outcome to this standoff. A further escalation could even have a military dimension, with the U.S. having recently opened a new "embassy" in Taiwan, and sailing navy vessels close to Chinese "islands" in the South China Sea. It is also a complication that President Trump has recently raised tensions with other G7 trading partners, rather than engaging their help in combatting China's perceived unfair trading practices. Is It Time To Buy Chinese A-Shares? In Q2 2018, MSCI China A-shares lost 19% in absolute terms, compared to a 3.5% gain for MSCI U.S. Some investors attribute this performance divergence to trade tension between the U.S. and China, and take the view that the Chinese government may step in to stimulate the economy and support the equity market, similar to what happened in 2015. We have no doubt that China will stimulate again if the economy appears to be heading for a deep slowdown. Given elevated debt levels and excess capacity in some parts of the economy and worries about pollution, however, the bar for a fresh round of stimulus is a lot higher than in the past. With the incremental inclusion of MSCI on-shore A-Shares into the MSCI China investible universe, A-shares are gaining more attention from international investors. However, the A-Share Index is very different from the MSCI China Index. First, the sector compositions are very different, as shown in Chart 9. The MSCI China index is not only dominated by the tech sector (40%), it's also very concentrated, with the top 10 names accounting for 56% of the index, while the top 10 names in the A-shares account for only about 20%. Second, even in the same sectors, the performance of the two indexes has diverged as shown in Chart 10. We see the reason for these divergences being that domestic investors are more concerned about growth in China than foreign investors are. Instead of buying A-Shares, investors should be more cautious on the MSCI China Index, for which we have a neutral view within MSCI EM universe. Chart 9 Chart 10ONE CHINA, TWO DIFFERENT EQUITY INDEXES What Are The Characteristics Of The Private Debt Market? Chart 11Private Debt Market Private debt (Chart 11) raised a record $115 billion through 158 funds in 2017, pushing aggregate AUM from $244 billion in 2007 to $664 billion in 2017. This explosive growth was driven by bank consolidation in the U.S., increased financial sector regulation, and the global search for yield. Private debt has historically enjoyed a higher yield and return, along with fewer defaults, than traditional public-market corporate bonds. Below are some of the key points from our recent Special Report:5 Private debt has returned an average net IRR of 13% from 1989 to 2015. This compares to an annualized total return of 7% and 7.2% for equities and corporate bonds respectively. Investors can diversify their sources of risk and return by giving access to more esoteric exposures such as illiquidity and manager skill. The core risk exposure in private debt comes from idiosyncratic firm-specific sources, which is not the case with publicly traded corporate credit. Investors can gain more tailored exposure to different industries and customized duration horizons. Additionally, private debt was the only group in the private space that did not experience a contraction in AUM during the financial crisis. Direct lending and mezzanine debt are capital preservation strategies that offer more stable returns while minimizing downside. Distressed debt and venture debt are more return-maximizing strategies that offer larger gains, but with a higher probability of losses. In the late stages of an economic cycle, investors should deploy capital defensively through first-lien and other senior secured debt positions. In contrast, a recession would create opportunities for distressed strategies and within deeper parts of the capital structure. Global Economy Overview: Growing divergences are emerging in global growth, with the U.S. producing strong data, but a cyclical slowdown in the euro area and Japan, and the risk of significantly slower growth in China and other emerging markets. This means that monetary policy divergences are also likely to increase, exacerbating the rise in the U.S. dollar and putting further pressure on emerging markets. Eventually, however, tighter financial conditions could start to dampen growth in the U.S. too. U.S.: Data has been very strong for the past few months, with the Fed's two NowCasts pointing to 2.9% and 4.5% QoQ annualized GDP growth in Q2. Small businesses are confident (with the NFIB survey at a near record high), which suggests that the capex recovery is likely to continue. With unemployment at the lowest level since 1969, wages should pick up soon, boosting consumption. But it is possible the data might now start to weaken. The Surprise Index (Chart 12, panel 1) has turned down. And a combination of trade war and a stronger dollar (up 8% in trade-weighted terms since April) might start to dent business and consumer confidence. Chart 12U.S. Growth Remains Strong... Chart 13...While Europe, Japan And EMs Start To Slow Euro Area: Euro area data, by contrast to the U.S., have turned down since the start of the year, with both the PMI and IFO slipping significantly (Chart 13, panel 1). This is most likely because the 6% appreciation of the euro last year has affected export growth, which has slowed to 3.1% YoY, from 8.3% at the start of the year. However, the PMI remains strong (around the same level as the U.S.) and, with a weaker euro since April, growth might pick up late in the year, as long as problems with trade and Italy do not deteriorate. Japan: Japan's growth has also slipped noticeably in recent months (Chart 13, panel 2), perhaps also because of currency strength, though question-marks over Prime Minister Abe's longevity and the slowdown in China may also be having an effect. The rise in inflation towards the Bank of Japan's 2% target has also faltered, with core CPI in April back to 0.3% YoY, though wages have seen a modest pickup to 1.2%. Emerging Markets: China is now showing clear signs of slowing, as the tightened monetary conditions and slower credit growth of the past 12 months have an effect. Fixed-asset investment, retail sales and industrial production all surprised to the downside in May. The authorities have responded to this (and to threat of trade disruptions) by slightly easing monetary policy, though this has not yet fed through to market rates, which have risen as a result of rising defaults. Elsewhere in EM, many central banks have responded to sharp declines in their currencies by raising rates, which is likely to dampen growth. Those, such as Brazil, which refrained from defensive rate hikes, are likely to see an acceleration in inflation Interest rates: The Fed has signaled that it plans to continue to hike once a quarter at least for the next 12 months. It may eventually have to accelerate that pace if core PCE inflation moves decisively above 2%. The ECB, by contrast, announced a "dovish tightening" last month, when it signaled the end of asset purchases in December, but no rate hike "through the summer" of next year. It can do this because euro zone core inflation remains around 1%, with fewer underlying inflationary pressures than in the U.S. The Bank of Japan is set to remain the last major central bank with accommodative policy, since it is unlikely to alter its yield-curve control any time soon. Global Equities Chart 14Neutral Global Equities A Bird In The Hand Is Worth Two In The Bush: After the initial strong recovery from the low in March 2009, global equity earnings have risen by only 20% from Q3 2011, and that rise mostly came after February 2016. In the same period, global equity prices, however, have gained over 80%, largely due to multiple expansion (Chart 14), supported by accommodative monetary and stimulative fiscal policies. Year-to-date, our pro-cyclical equity positioning has played out well with developed markets (DM) outperforming emerging markets (EM) by 8.8%, and cyclical equities outperforming defensives by 2.9%. As the year progresses, however, we are becoming more and more concerned about future prospects given the stage of the cycle, stretched valuations and the elevated profit margin.6 The three macro "policy puts", namely the Fed Put, the China Put and the Draghi Put, are all in jeopardy of disappearing or, at the very least, of weakening, in addition to the risk of rising protectionism. BCA's House View has downgraded global risk assets to neutral.7 Reflecting this change, within global equities we recommend investors to take a more defensive stance by reducing portfolio risk. We remain overweight DM and underweight EM; We upgrade U.S. equities to overweight at the expense of the euro area (see next page); Sector-wise, we suggest to take profits in the pro-cyclical tilts and become more defensive (see page 14). Please see page 21 for the complete portfolio allocation details. U.S. Vs. The Euro Area: Trading Places Chart 15Favor U.S. Vs. Euro Area In line with the BCA House View to reduce exposure in global risk assets, we are downgrading the euro area to neutral in order to fund an upgrade of the U.S. to overweight from neutral, for the following reasons: First, GAA's recommended equity portfolio has always been expressed in USD terms on an unhedged basis. Historically, the relative total return performance of euro area equities vs. the U.S. has been highly correlated with the euro/USD exchange rate. With BCA's House View calling for further strength of the USD versus the euro, we expect euro area total return in USD terms to underperform the U.S. (Chart 15, panel 1). Second, the euro area economy has been weakening vs. the U.S. as seen by the relative performance of PMIs in the two regions; this bodes ill for the euro area's relative profitability (Chart 15, Panel 2). Third, because euro area equities have a much higher beta to global equities than U.S. equities do, shifting towards the U.S. reduces the overall portfolio beta (Chart 15, Panel 3). Last, even though euro area equities are cheaper than the U.S. in absolute term, they have always traded at a discount to the U.S. On a relative basis, this discount is currently fair compared to the historical average. Sector Allocation: Become More Defensive Chart 16Sectors: Turn Defensive Year to date, our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked very well, especially the underweights in telecoms, consumer staples and utilities, and the overweight of energy. The overweight in healthcare also has worked well, but the overweights in financials and industrials, as well as the underweight of consumer discretionary, have not panned out. Global economic growth has peaked, albeit at a high level. This does not bode well for the profitability of the economically sensitive sectors (industrials, consumer discretionary and materials) relative to the defensive sectors (healthcare, consumer staples and telecoms), as shown in Chart 16, top two panels. In addition, slowing Chinese growth will weigh on the materials sector, and rising tension in global trade will pressure the industrials sector. As such, we are upgrading consumer staples to overweight (from underweight) and telecoms to neutral, and downgrading materials to underweight (from neutral). Oil has gained 16% so far this year, driving energy equities to outperform the global benchmark by 6.2%. Going forward, however, the oil outlook is less certain as OPEC and Russia work to ease production controls, and demand is cloudy. This prompts us to close the overweight in the energy sector to stay on the sideline for now (Chart 16, bottom panel). We also suggest investors to reduce exposure in financials to a benchmark weighting due to our concerns on Europe and also the flattening of yield curves. After all these changes, we are now overweight healthcare and consumer staples while underweight consumer discretionary, utilities and materials. All other sectors are in line with benchmark weightings. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. BCA's house view has downgraded global risk assets to neutral and raised cash to overweight, while maintaining an underweight in fixed income.8 This prompts us to downgrade credit to neutral vs. government bonds (see next page). However, we still see rates rising over the next 9-12 months and so our short duration recommendation for the government bonds is unchanged. The U.S. Fed is on track to deliver a 25bps rate hike each quarter given robust business confidence and tight labor markets, and the ECB has announced it will stop new bond buying in its Asset Purchase Program after December this year. As such, bond yields are likely to move higher in both the U.S. and the euro area given the close relationship between 10-year term premium and net issuance (Chart 17). Chart 17Yields Will Rise Further Chart 18Favor Inflation-Linked Bonds Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. The latest NFIB survey shows that wage pressure is on the rise, with reports of compensation increases hitting a record high (Chart 18, top panel). BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy still believes that the U.S. TIPS breakeven will rise to 2.4-2.5% around the time that U.S. core PCE inflation exceeds the Fed's 2% target rate (the Fed forecasts 2.1% by end-2018). Compared to the current breakeven level of 2.1%, this means 10-year TIPS has upside of 30-40bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed income space (Chart 18, panel 2). Maintain overweight TIPS vs. nominal bonds. However, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not already moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest "buying TIPS on dips". Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are also still very attractive vs. their respective nominal bonds (Chart 18, bottom panel). Overweight ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Corporate Bonds Chart 19Spreads Not Attractive We have favored both investment-grade and high-yield corporates (Chart 19) over government bonds for over two years. But, while monetary and credit conditions remain favorable, we think rising uncertainty and weakening corporate balance sheets in the coming quarters warrant a more cautious stance. We are moving to neutral on corporate credit. In Q1, outstanding U.S. corporate debt grew at an annualized rate of 4.4%, while pre-tax profits (on a national accounts basis) contracted by 5.7%, raising gross leverage from 6.9x to 7.1x. The benign default rates and tight credit spreads associated with robust economic growth are at risk now that leverage growth is soon poised to overtake cash flow growth, challenging companies' debt service capability. Finally, if labor costs accelerate, leverage will continue to rise in 2H18. Since February, our financial conditions index has tightened considerably driven by a combination of falling equity prices and a stronger dollar. As monetary policy shifts to an outright restrictive stance once inflation reaches the Fed's target later in 2018, corporates will suffer. The risk-adjusted returns to high yield (Chart 20) are no longer attractive relative to government bonds. Chart 20Junk Only Attractive If Defaults Stay Low Chart 21Rising Leverage Finally, valuations are expensive. Investment grade spreads have widened by 50bps from the start of the year, but junk spreads are still close to their post-crisis lows. As we are late in the credit cycle, we do not expect further contraction in spreads. For now monetary and credit quality indicators remain stable, but we are booking profits and moving both investment-grade and high-yield corporates to neutral. In the second half of the year, as corporate leverage (Chart 21) starts to deteriorate and monetary policy gets more restrictive, we will look to further review our allocations. Commodities Chart 22Strong Demand But Uncertain Supply In Oil Energy (Overweight): Underlying demand/supply fundamentals (Chart 22, panel 2) will continue to drive prices, as the correlation with the U.S. dollar breaks down. We expect the key OPEC countries to increase production by 800k b/d and over 210k b/d in 2H18 and 1H19 respectively. This will be offset by losses in the rest of OPEC of 530k b/d and 640k b/d in 2H18 and 1H19 respectively. Venezuelan production has dropped from a peak of 2.1m b/d to 1.4m b/d, and we expect it to reach 1.2m b/d by year end and 1.0m b/d by the end of 2019. Additionally, we expect Iranian exports to fall by 200k b/d to the end of 2018, and by another 300k b/d by the end of 1H19 as a result of sanctions. Demand seems to be holding up for now, but is conditional on developments in global trade. BCA's energy team forecasts Brent crude to average $70 in 2H18 and $77 in 2019. Industrial Metals (Neutral): China remains the largest consumer of metals, and so price action will react to underlying economic growth there and to the dynamics of its local metals markets. Additionally, a strengthening dollar will add downward pressure to prices and increase volatility. We expect a physical surplus in copper markets to emerge by year end, given slower demand growth and supply concerns due to restrictions on China's imports of scrap copper. Precious Metals (Neutral): Rising global uncertainties and geopolitical tensions driven by trade wars and divergent monetary policy will continue to keep market volatility high. During periods of equity market downturns, gold will continue to be an attractive hedge. Additionally, as inflationary pressures continue to rise, investors will continue to look for inflation protection in gold. However, rising interest rates and a strengthening dollar could limit price upside. We recommend gold as a safe-haven asset against unexpected volatility and inflation surprises. Currencies Chart 23Dollar Appreciation To Continue King Dollar U.S. Dollar: Following the recent strong economic data out of the U.S., the Fed is likely to maintain its moderately hawkish stance and follow its current dot plan of gradual rate hikes over the course of this year and next. For now the Fed is unlikely to accelerate the pace of hikes: it hinted that it could allow inflation to overshoot its target of 2% on core PCE. We expect the U.S. dollar to appreciate further over the coming months (Chart 23, panel 1). Euro: Disappointments in European economic data, in addition to political uncertainties in Italy, have led to a correction in the EUR/USD (Chart 23, panel 2). The ECB's indication that it will not raise rates through the summer of 2019 added further downward pressure on the currency. In addition, rising tension related to trade war and its impact on European growth is likely to dampen the euro's performance further. We look for EUR/USD to weaken to at least 1.12. JPY: The outlook for the yen is more mixed than for the euro. Japanese data over the past couple of months have been anemic, and interest rate differentials with the U.S. point to a weakening yen (Chart 23, panel 3). Moreover, the BoJ is still concerned with achieving its inflation target and so remains the last major central bank in full accommodative mode. However, escalating global tension is likely to be a positive factor for the JPY as a safe haven currency. It also looks far cheaper relative to PPP than does the euro. We see the yen trading fairly flat to the USD, but appreciating against the euro. EM Currencies: Tighter U.S. financial conditions, rising bond yields, and a strengthening dollar are all disastrous for EM currencies (Chart 23, panel 4). Additionally, the ongoing growth slowdown in China, and in EM as a whole, will add further downside pressures on most EM currencies. Alternatives Chart 24Turn Defensive On Alts Allocations to alternatives continue to rise as investors look for new avenues to preserve capital and generate attractive returns. We are turning more cautious on risk assets across all asset classes on the back of a possible growth slowdown and restrictive monetary policy. With intra-correlations between alternative assets reaching new lows (Chart 24), investors need to be especially careful picking the right category of alt investments. Return Enhancers: We have favored private equity over hedge funds since 1Q16, and this has generated an excess return of 20%. But, given our decision to scale back on risk assets on the back of a possible growth slowdown, we are turning cautious on private equity. Higher private-market multiples, stiff competition for buyouts from large corporates, and an uncertain macro outlook will make deal flow difficult. On the other hand, as volatility makes a comeback and markets move sideways, discretionary and systematic macro funds should fare better. We recommend investors pair back on their private equity allocations and increase hedge funds as we prepare for the next recession. Inflation Hedges: We have favored direct real estate over commodity futures since 1Q16; this position has generated a small loss of 1.4%. Total global commercial real-estate (CRE) loans outstanding have reached a record $4.3 trillion, 11% higher than at the pre-crisis peak. CRE prices peaked in late 2016, and are now flat-lining, partly due to the downturn of shopping malls and traditional retail. On the other hand, commodity futures have had a good run on the back of rising energy prices. We recommend investors reduce their real estate allocations, and put on modest positions in commodity futures as an inflation hedge. Volatility Dampeners: We have favored farmland and timberland over structured products since 1Q16, and this has generated an excess return of 6%. As noted in our Special Report,9 of the two, timberland assets tend to have a stronger correlation with growth, whereas farmland demand is relatively inelastic during times of a slowdown. Additionally, farmland returns tend to have lower volatility compared to timberland. Structured products will continue to suffer with rising rates. We recommend investors allocate more to farmland over timberland, and stay underweight structured products. Risks To Our View Chart 25What If China's Imports Weaken Sharply Our neutral view on risk assets implies that we see the upside and downside risks as evenly balanced. Could the macro environment turn out to be worse than we envisage? Clearly, there would be more downside for equities if the risks we highlighted in the Overview (slowing growth, U.S. inflation, trade war, Chinese policy) all come through. China and emerging markets are the key. China's import growth has been trending down for 12 months; could it turn significantly negative, as it did in 2015 (Chart 25)? Emerging markets look sensitive to further rises in U.S. interest rates and the dollar. The most vulnerable currencies have already fallen by up to 20% since the start of the year, but could fall further (Chart 26). We would not over-emphasize these risks, however. If growth were to slow drastically, China would roll out stimulus. Emerging markets are more resilient than they were in the 1990s, thanks to currencies that mostly are floating and generally healthier current account positions (though, note, their foreign-currency debt is bigger). Chart 26EM Currencies Could Fall Further Chart 27Is This An Excuse For The Fed To Be Dovish? On the positive side, the biggest upside risk comes from the Fed slowing the pace of rate hikes even though growth is robust. This might be because U.S. inflation remains subdued (perhaps for structural reasons) - or because the Fed allows an overshoot of inflation, either under political pressure, or because of arguments that its inflation target is "symmetrical" and that it has missed it on the downside ever since the target was introduced in 2012 (Chart 27). This would be likely to weaken the dollar, giving emerging markets a reprieve. It might lead to a 1999-like stock market rally, perhaps led again by tech - specifically, internet - stocks. 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: How Seriously Should We Take The Risk Of A Trade War, on page 7 of this Quarterly for more analysis of this subject. 2 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: How To Overweight Cash, on page 6 of this Quarterly for some suggestions on how to minimize this. 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In?", dated June 16, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "A Primer On Catastrophe Bonds", dated December 12, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Private Debt: An Investment Primer", dated June 6, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation - Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, dated April 3, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy - Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy - Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation - Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer", dated October 24, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation