Global

Special Report

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Asia over the next ten days, so we are sending you this week's report a bit ahead of schedule. In addition, at the end of this report, we are including the recommendations from our tactical asset allocation model. Going forward, we will be updating these recommendations on our website at the end of every month. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Feature Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart 1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart 2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart 3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart 2The Great Recession Hit##BR##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart 3The Shift Towards Software Has##BR##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart 6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart 7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart 7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart 8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s##BR##While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Chart 10The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude##BR##Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart 10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart 11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart 12). Chart 11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First,##BR##Followed By Higher Savings Chart 12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated,##BR##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart 13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart 14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart 15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart 13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart 15Aging Will Reduce##BR##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart 16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart 17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart 18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart 16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been##BR##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart 18Savings Heavily Skewed##BR##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart 19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart 20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart 21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart 19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Chart 21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of##BR##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. Chart 22Output Gap Has Narrowed##BR##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart 22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. APPENDIX: Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis and intuition, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. Compared to last month, our tactical (3-month) model is recommending an upgrade to global equities at the expense of government bonds. Global equities have consolidated their gains, removing some of the overbought conditions that prevailed earlier in May. Bullish equity sentiment has also waned somewhat, while net speculative positioning in U.S. stocks has moved from being net long to net short. In contrast, speculative positioning in Treasurys has jumped into net long territory (Chart A1). Our models say that government bonds in most economies remain overbought. Regionally, we continue to favor higher-beta developed equity markets such as Europe and Japan. Canada, Australia, and most emerging markets have also received an upgrade, owing to a more favorable near-term outlook for commodity prices. Within the bond universe, U.S. Treasurys are most vulnerable to a selloff, given that the market is pricing in only two rate hikes over the next 12 months. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have ##br##Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Reflation Trade: The backdrop for global growth and monetary liquidity remains positive, and suggests that risk assets will outperform government debt for the balance of 2017. However, there are some early signs of fading momentum which raises risks for financial markets in 2018. New Zealand: The more dovish tone taken by the RBNZ reflects the more uncertain outlook for New Zealand growth and inflation. Go long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries (currency-hedged) and also versus 5-year German government debt (currency-unhedged). South Korea: Large expected increases in fiscal spending from the new government in Seoul will drive up the longer end of the South Korean government bond curve, while the Bank of Korea's easing stance and weak domestic economy will anchor the short-end of the curve. Position for this by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the South Korean government bond market. Feature "I know it makes no difference to what you're going through; but I see the tip of the iceberg, and I worry about you." - Rush Is The Liquidity Party Starting To Wind Down? Global financial markets continue to enjoy the "sweet spot" of a solidly expanding global economy, but without enough inflation pressure to force central banks to slam on the monetary brakes. That backdrop is starting to change, though. Odds are rising that the European Central Bank (ECB) will begin tapering its bond buying next year, with some hints of that possibly being announced as soon as next week's monetary policy meeting. At the same time, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) - faced with the operational constraints of buying an ever-increasing share of Japanese financial assets - is focused on targeting long-term interest rates rather than increasing liquidity. Even the Federal Reserve is now talking about reducing its massive balance sheet later this year. The liquidity tailwind to global growth and risk assets is now at risk of becoming a headwind. Already, the growth rate of the major central bank balance sheets has rolled over and is on course to decelerate further over the next year (Chart of the Week). Importantly, this downshift in global liquidity momentum is happening as signs of slowing growth have appeared in some major economies like China and the U.S. (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekLiquidity Tailwind To Risk##BR##Assets Is Fading Chart 2Growth Momentum##BR##Already Starting To Cool Off We remain concerned that the Chinese economy will see a policy-induced deceleration in the 2nd half of the year. However, we still expect the U.S. to rebound after the soft patch of growth in the first quarter, and we see nothing in the Euro Area data to suggest that the current solid expansion is at risk of fading quickly. This should allow inflation expectations to drift upward toward the central bank targets given the apparent lack of spare capacity on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 3). Chart 3Fed & ECB Facing##BR##Economic Capacity Constraints We still expect the Fed to deliver another two rate hikes before year-end and the ECB to begin its exit strategy from the current extraordinary monetary policies by slowing the pace of asset purchases starting early next year. For now, the backdrop will remain supportive for the outperformance of growth-sensitive assets like corporate credit and equities over government bonds in the U.S. and Europe over the balance of 2017. However, the early signals sent by "leading leading" indicators such as our Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index (Chart 2, top panel) suggests that liquidity and growth trends will become far more challenging for the markets in 2018. Bottom Line: The backdrop for global growth and monetary liquidity remains positive, and suggests that risk assets will outperform government debt for the balance of 2017. However, there are some early signs of fading momentum which raises risks for financial markets in 2018. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure and an overweight allocation to corporate debt in global fixed income portfolios. New Zealand: Safety From A Global Bond Apocalypse? A growing number of the world's most wealthiest (and, arguably, most paranoid) people are reportedly buying real estate in New Zealand as a safe haven place to live if modern civilization collapses.1 While the immediate need for taking such precautions can be debated, there is sound logic in treating New Zealand as a location far removed from the current geopolitical and socio-economic problems of the world. We now see a case for treating New Zealand bonds as a potential "safe haven" market for global fixed income investors. The Economic Backdrop Has Become More Muddled We have been running a SHORT position in New Zealand (paying 12-month OIS rates) in our Tactical Overlay portfolio since last November. Our view then was that the New Zealand economy would surprise to the upside in 2017 and inflation was likely to start drifting upward. This would pressure the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to raise the Official Cash Rate (OCR) from the highly accommodative level of 1.75%. So far, that expectation has not panned out as the RBNZ has held rates steady amid a more uncertain outlook for the New Zealand economy. Growth indicators have been a bit mixed over the past few months, but the current uptick in the manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI) is pointing to real GDP expanding around 3% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4). If maintained for the full year, this would be slightly above the RBNZ's estimate of potential growth at 2.8%. There are some downside risks, however, given that consumer and business confidence are both below previous cyclical peaks and fiscal policy is expected to be mildly restrictive in 2017 (bottom three panels). The housing market remains a key cyclical wild card. Residential construction has been a significant source of growth over the past few years, driven by a surge in net immigration into New Zealand and declining interest rates (Chart 5). However, the RBNZ is projecting immigration inflows to slow from the current high level, largely due to improving labor market conditions in the developed economies (most notably, Australia, which is the largest source of New Zealand immigrants). Chart 4Stable NZ Growth...For Now Chart 5NZ Housing Activity Starting To Peak Out Slower immigration would reduce the demand for New Zealand housing at a time when mortgage rates have already been rising off the record lows seen in 2016 (bottom panel). This has occurred without any rate hikes from the RBNZ, as rising global bond yields have put upward pressure on New Zealand bank funding costs, which have been passed through to higher mortgage rates. The RBNZ is currently projecting growth in house prices to slow sharply from last year's robust 15% pace to just 5% in 2017. The main drivers are higher borrowing costs and the ongoing impact of macro-prudential regulations against high loan-to-value ratio mortgage lending. Importantly, slower housing activity will not only have a direct impact on GDP growth through softer construction, but will also indirectly dampen consumer spending growth via wealth effects. Yet even with this expected drag on growth from housing, the New Zealand economy is still expected to face capacity constraints over the rest of the year. Higher Uncertainty Over Price Pressures Both the RBNZ and the International Monetary Fund estimate that the output gap has fully closed and is projected to move into positive territory this year (Chart 6). At the same time, the current unemployment rate of 4.9% is below the OECD's estimate of the full employment level and the RBNZ projects a further decline in joblessness in 2017 (third panel). Despite this evidence of the economy reaching capacity constraints, both wage growth and price inflation remain subdued and inflation expectations remain well-anchored around 2% - the midpoint of the RBNZ's 1-3% target range. Wage costs are particularly depressed, growing only 1% on a year-over-year basis in Q1. This may be related to the rise in the labor force participation rate - up to an all-time high of 70.6% in Q1 from a cyclical low of 68.2% at the end of 2015 - that has increased the available supply of labor. The most recent headline inflation print for Q1 was quite strong, taking the year-over-year growth rate up to 2.2%. Yet in the RBNZ's April Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the central bank took a surprisingly dovish tone, citing uncertainty over the true degree of slack in the economy and downside risks to growth that would prevent a further acceleration of inflation.2 The RBNZ now forecasts inflation to not rise above 2.2% this year and to fall back to 1.1% in both 2018, led by a sharp decline in growth for tradeables, mostly energy and food inflation (Chart 7). Importantly, this forecast includes the recent decline in the trade-weighted New Zealand Dollar (NZD). Non-tradeables inflation is also expected to stabilize on the back of slower housing-related items in the consumer price index. Chart 6RBNZ Not Expecting A Big Rise In Inflation... Chart 7...As Growth In Tradeables Prices Cools A Weaker Case For Tighter Monetary Policy The official RBNZ projection is that the OCR will stay unchanged at 1.75% until September 2019. The market expectation priced into the NZD OIS curve calls for 27bps of hikes over the next twelve months (Chart 8). Our New Zealand Central Bank Monitor has been suggesting the need for tighter monetary policy since mid-2016, but appears to be rolling over (2nd panel). The diminished rate hike expectations have coincided with a decline in the NZD and a sharp underperformance of New Zealand equities. The markets are giving a consistent signal on softening growth prospects in New Zealand, confirming the central bank's more recent dovish turn. Chart 8Market Expectations Of##BR##RBNZ Hikes Are Fading Given the newfound uncertainties over the New Zealand growth and inflation outlook, the case for owning New Zealand interest rate exposure has grown a little bit stronger. Admittedly, we do not envision a major pullback in growth, and inflation may not fall by as much as the RBNZ is expecting given how little spare capacity there appears to be in the economy. Yet there is now just enough uncertainty to keep the central bank on hold for longer than expected, as was noted in the "scenario analysis" section of the April MPS.3 The RBNZ noted that if the level of spare capacity is smaller than currently assumed, then the latest growth forecast will result in inflation eventually moving to 2.0% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2019, resulting in the OCR needing to rise to 2.25% in two years. Alternatively, if housing demand slows even faster than current projections, inflation would be below the 2% target during the next two years and the OCR would need to fall to 1.25% by the end of 2018. Our takeaway from this is that, even in the more positive scenario, interest rates are not expected to rise by much more than the markets are currently discounting. Position For Tighter New Zealand Spreads Versus Treasuries & Bunds The economic risks in New Zealand now appear evenly balanced. This argues for stable monetary policy and diminished bond volatility. Current market forwards for both government bonds and NZD swaps shows that very little movement in interest rates is expected over the next year (Chart 9). We generally agree with this pricing, although the uncertainty over the degree of spare capacity, and underlying inflation pressures, make a directional view on interest rates or the shape of the yield curve an unattractive risk proposition. A more interesting opportunity presents itself in looking at spread trades between New Zealand government bonds versus other developed market sovereign debt. The yield betas for New Zealand versus the U.S. and Germany have fallen steadily over the past year (Chart 10), indicating that New Zealand bonds can be more insulated from the rise in yields that we expect for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds over the latter half of 2017. Given the competitively high yields on offer in New Zealand, even on a currency-hedged basis (bottom panel), we see a case for going long New Zealand interest rate exposure versus U.S. and Germany. Chart 9Higher NZ Bond Yields##BR##Priced Into Forwards Chart 10NZ Bonds: Now Lower Beta##BR##With Higher Hedged Yields At current yield levels, going long New Zealand versus Germany looks more compelling relative to spread compression trades versus U.S. Treasuries. We see strong potential for New Zealand-Germany spreads to tighten faster than the forwards over the next six months (Chart 11), largely through rising German yields as the ECB signals that a tapering of bond purchases is set to begin next year. The downside potential for New Zealand-U.S. spread compression looks less likely from current tight levels, although if Treasury yields rise by as much as we expect in the coming months, some spread tightening should occur here, as well. Chart 11Go Long 5Yr NZ Bonds Vs##BR##USTs and German OBLs Based on our analysis, we are closing our current NZD rates trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio with a tiny profit of +3bps , and entering two new trades: long 5-year NZD government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries, on a currency-hedged basis; and long 5yr NZD government bonds versus 5-year German government debt, on a currency-unhedged basis.4 We are choosing to hedge the currency exposure back into USD for the former given the view of BCA's currency strategists that the EUR/USD exchange rate is now stretched too far to the upside and is at risk of declining as the Fed delivers on additional rate hikes in the coming months.5 In other words, we see a greater potential for a decline in NZD/USD than NZD/EUR in the next 3-6 months. Bottom Line: The more dovish tone taken by the RBNZ reflects the more uncertain outlook for New Zealand growth and inflation, in contrast to the strong likelihood of additional Fed rate hikes and an ECB taper announcement in the next few months. Go long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries (currency-hedged) and also versus 5-year German government debt (currency-unhedged). South Korea: A Bad Moon Rising For Bond Yields Chart 12Markets Not Worried##BR##About The New President The new South Korean president, Moon Jae-In was elected on May 9th, ending a year of political turmoil after the previous president's scandal and impeachment. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy view Moon and his Democratic Party as a major shift to the political left.6 The new president's policy agenda is aimed at economic stimulus for the working class alongside reforms of the country's chaebol industrial giants. Korean financial markets have greeted the election result positively, with the benchmark KOSPI equity index up 2.7%, and the Korean won up 1% versus the U.S. dollar, from the pre-election levels on May 8th. (Chart 12). This is consistent with past market behavior, as the won tends to be less reactive toward domestic events (i.e. after the previous president's impeachment, the won actually strengthened) and more sensitive to international uncertainties (i.e. North Korea-U.S. military tensions, as occurred in mid-March). Korean interest rates, however, have shown little response to the change in leadership in Seoul, with bond yields unchanged since the election. We see this as presenting an opportunity for fixed income investors. Clearly, the new regime in Seoul represents a real change for the Korean people, but it also represents a potential shift in the economic backdrop - namely, through an expected large fiscal stimulus from the new government - that will impart a steepening bias to the Korean interest rate curve. A Sluggish Economy Greets The New President While the steady, if unspectacular, pace of global growth in the past few years has been enough to absorb spare capacity in many countries, South Korea's sub-par economic performance has left the country with a widening output gap (Chart 13). Policymakers are well aware that consumer spending, which contributes about 60% of GDP, has been steadily weakening alongside slowing credit growth. Chart 13Sluggish Growth In South Korea The new government will attempt to boost domestic consumption, and thus overall growth, by increasing social welfare spending. Moon's economic agenda calls for raising the minimum wage by 55% by 2020, increasing subsidies for education costs and parental leave, and doubling the basic pension payment for the elderly regardless of their income level. It might prove to be very effective in the short term at boosting consumer spending, but this may not prove to be a sustainable driver of growth in South Korea, where the marginal swings in the economy have historically been driven more by exports. Youth joblessness is another problem that Moon will attempt to tackle with his ambitious economic program. While the labor market may appear healthy, with an overall unemployment rate of only 3.7%, the situation is far more challenging for young adults in South Korea - the jobless rate for those aged 20-29 is 11.3%. One of the reasons for such a high unemployment rate among young South Koreans is that university graduates, of which there are many in this highly-educated nation, expect (and look for) high-paying jobs, but cannot find enough of them.7 The labor market has become more competitive in recent years as weak economic growth has limited the ability of private sector, especially large corporations, to hire as much. To solve this problem, the new government has promised to create 810,000 jobs in the public sector. Creating public sector jobs may temporarily solve the high unemployment rate, but in the long run, this will also cause larger fiscal burdens for taxpayers. Position For A Steeper South Korean Yield Curve Headline CPI inflation in South Korea is currently hovering around the 2% target of the Bank of Korea (BoK), while core CPI growth is lower at 1.3%. The BoK has maintain the policy rate at 1.25% since June 2016, with a bias towards additional easing given the lack of sustained inflationary pressure amid weak domestic demand. The BoK did sound a slightly more upbeat tone on the economy at last week's monetary policy meeting, led by the spillover effects from improving global growth rather than a more bullish expectation on the Korean consumer. Importantly, the central bank still expects inflation pressures to remain subdued - no surprise given the large output gap. The BoK did note that it is monitoring several factors in judging future policy decisions: the pace of rate hikes by the Fed, trends in global trade, geopolitical tensions, the pace of household debt accumulation and "the directions of the new government's fiscal policies." The latter may end up being the most important factor, as President Moon is proposing an increase in government spending equal to 0.7% of GDP - an amount equal to ½ of the estimated output gap coming after a 2016 budget surplus of 1% of GDP. This increase in fiscal spending could directly drive up the longer-end of Korean yield curve, as this would result in a narrower budget surpluses and greater KGB issuance. At the same time, the lack of domestic inflation pressures, even with the fiscal stimulus, will keep the BoK on an easing bias that will keep short dated yields well anchored. Therefore, we see the potential for the Korean yield curve to eventually steepen and break the downward-sloping trendline in place since 2014 (Chart 14). We recommend positioning for this move by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the Korean yield curve. Admittedly, this trade is more structural than tactical in nature, as the Moon stimulus policies will take time to unfold. Importantly, a flattening of the 2-year/10-year KGB curve is currently priced into the forwards, meaning that positioning now for a steepener does not incur negative carry (Chart 15). Chart 14More Fiscal Stimulus =##BR##Steeper Korea Curve Chart 15Enter A 2Yr/10Yr##BR##Korean Bond Curve Steepener Also, Korean 10-year bond yields are currently exhibiting a strong correlation to similar maturity U.S. Treasuries with a yield beta around 1.0 (bottom panel). Given our view that longer-dated U.S. yields have upside risk from both additional Fed rate increases and higher U.S. inflation expectations, that high yield beta suggests that the Korean yield curve could suffer some of the same cyclical bear-steepening pressures that we expect for U.S. Treasuries in the next 3-6 months. Bottom Line: Large expected increases in fiscal spending from the new government in Seoul will drive up the longer end curve of the South Korean government bond curve, while the Bank of Korea's easing stance and weak domestic economy will anchor the short-end of the curve. Position for this by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the South Korean bond curve. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/29/silicon-valley-new-zealand-apocalypse-escape 2 The central bank noted that its "suite" of output gap estimates, using varying methodologies, have an unusually wide range at the moment between -1.5% and +2%. 3 http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/monetary-policy-statement 4 These trades can be done using interest rate swaps as well (receiving NZD rates vs paying USD & EUR rates), as swap spreads are expected to remain broadly stable in all three regions. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Bloody Potomac", dated May 19 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets" dated May 24 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 According to the OECD, Korea's college enrollment rate was a whopping 87% as recently as 2014. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Fiscal policy is likely to be eased modestly in most advanced economies over the next two years. The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has proposed. Ironically, fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. The market is pricing in too little Fed tightening over the remainder of the year. The dollar's swoon is ending. Go short EUR/USD with a target of parity by the end of the year. Feature Fiscal Thrust Around The World In its latest Fiscal Monitor, the IMF estimated that advanced economies eased fiscal policy by 0.2% of GDP in 2016, reversing a five-year streak of fiscal tightening (Chart 1). The Fund expects a further 0.1% of GDP of easing in 2017, followed by a neutral stance in 2018. In the EM universe, the IMF foresees a fiscal thrust1 of -0.2% of GDP in 2017 and -0.4% of GDP in 2018. Chart 1IMF Expects Modest Fiscal Easing In Advanced Economies, Further Tightening In EM Averages can disguise a lot of variation across countries (Charts 2). Comparing 2018 with 2016, the IMF expects Canada and the U.S. to experience a positive fiscal thrust of 0.7% of GDP and 0.4% of GDP, respectively. The fiscal thrust is projected to be -0.2% of GDP in the euro area, -1% of GDP in the U.K., and -0.5% of GDP in Japan. Among the larger advanced economies, Australia is expected to experience the largest degree of fiscal tightening, with a fiscal thrust of -1.2% of GDP. Across the EM universe, most of the fiscal tightening is projected to occur among oil producers. The IMF expects oil-exporting economies to collectively reduce their fiscal deficits by US$150 billion between 2016 and 2018. Political considerations require that the IMF give considerable weight to the stated objectives of governments when formulating fiscal projections. In reality, governments often struggle to meet their budget targets. Consequently, the Fund has typically overestimated the degree of fiscal consolidation that ends up happening (Chart 3). As such, our own projections foresee somewhat less fiscal tightening - and in some countries, a fair bit of fiscal easing - than the IMF projects. In particular: Chart 2Countries Will Follow Different Fiscal Paths Chart 3IMF Forecasts Tend To Overestimate Extent Of Fiscal Consolidation We do not expect much more incremental fiscal tightening out of the euro area. Thanks to a slew of austerity measures, the euro area's structural primary budget balance went from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 2010 to a surplus of 1.0% of GDP in 2014. It has remained close to those levels ever since. Now that a primary surplus has already been achieved and interest rates and bond spreads have fallen to exceptionally low levels, the need for further belt tightening has abated. That's the good news. The bad news is that high government debt levels in many European economies rule out any major new stimulus programs (Chart 4). The U.K. will slow the pace of fiscal consolidation. The U.K.'s structural primary budget deficit fell from a peak of 7.1% of GDP in 2009 to 1.3% of GDP in 2016. The IMF expects the primary balance to move into a surplus of 0.6% of GDP in 2019. We think that's unlikely. The Conservatives are under intense pressure to keep the economy afloat during Brexit negotiations. Prime Minister Theresa May has indicated she will delay eradicating the budget deficit until the middle of the next decade, having previously promised a 2020 target date. Japan has limited scope to further tighten fiscal policy. Japan's structural primary budget deficit reached 6.9% of GDP in 2010. The IMF expects it to reach 3.7% this year and fall further to 2% in 2020, provided the government goes forward with raising the VAT from 8% to 10%. We are skeptical that Japan's economy will be strong enough to allow the government to raise taxes. However, even if it is, this will only be because the Bank of Japan gooses growth by keeping long-term yields pinned to zero, thereby allowing the yen to depreciate further. China is making a structural transition to large budget deficits. The IMF estimates that China's structural primary budget balance deteriorated from a surplus of 0.1% of GDP in 2014 to a deficit of 2.8% of GDP in 2016. The increase in the fiscal deficit cannot be explained by the reclassification of off-budget spending as on-budget, since the IMF's "augmented" fiscal balance - which attempts to control for such statistical issues - deteriorated by roughly the same amount (Chart 5). Part of the erosion in China's fiscal balance stemmed from the global manufacturing slowdown in 2015-2016, which hit tax receipts and necessitated a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus. However, there is more to the story than that. As we controversially argued in "China Needs More Debt," now that China is no longer in a position to run gargantuan current account surpluses, large fiscal deficits will be necessary to absorb excess private-sector savings.2 The government's desire to rein in credit growth will only add to the impetus to find new sources of aggregate demand. The era of red ink has begun. Chart 4Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Chart 5China's Fiscal Deficit Has Been Increasing The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has ambitiously proposed. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 6). We think this pessimism is overdone. Donald Trump desperately needs a "win," and cutting taxes is one key area where the President and Congress both see eye to eye. Trump's falling poll numbers have heightened the risk that the Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives next November (Chart 7). This makes passing a tax bill before the midterm elections all the more urgent. The main questions surround the scale and scope of any tax cuts, and just as critically, how they are paid for. We discuss these issues next. Chart 6Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Chart 7Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Trump's Budget Proposal: Fake Math Chart 8Trump In Wonderland? If the definition of a good leader is one who underpromises and overdelivers, then President Trump's budget proposal left much to be desired. Trump's plan assumes that U.S. growth will reach 3% over the next ten years. Even in the unlikely event that the economy manages to avert a recession over this period, such a growth rate would be a remarkable feat. After all, growth has averaged only 2.1% since 2009. And keep in mind that the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 4.4% over this interval, consistent with potential GDP growth of only 1.4%. The slow pace of capital accumulation following the Great Recession undoubtedly hurt the supply side of the economy, but it would take a phenomenal - and rather implausible - acceleration in potential GDP growth to justify Trump's 3% target. Many of the other assumptions in Trump's blueprint are no less dubious (Chart 8). Despite projecting much slower growth, the Federal Reserve expects short-term rates to rise to 3% in 2019. In contrast, the Trump administration sees rates increasing to only 2.4%, an assumption that perhaps not coincidentally helps reduce projected debt-servicing costs. Most flagrantly, the plan assumes no decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio, even though the basis for faster growth largely rests on the assumption of steep tax cuts. When pressed on the issue, officials from the Office of Management and Budget sheepishly noted that there would be offsetting limits on tax deductions, which would have the effect of broadening the tax base. However, no specific information was given on what these would entail. Many theories have been offered as to why Trump offered such an outlandish budget plan. Was he trying to appease conservatives in Congress? Perhaps this was just a sly attempt to gain leverage in future budget negotiations? Our theory is simpler: Trump promised an economic boom during the election campaign, while assuring voters that his tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Hell would need to freeze over before he released a plan that did not share these assumptions. Congress Will Decide So where do we go from here? The specifics of Trump's plan are irrelevant. Congress will rewrite the budget from scratch. Major spending cuts will be scrapped. So will the onerous cuts to insurance subsidies and Medicaid in the House version of the health care bill. The Senate will ditch those. In contrast, Trump's tax cuts will be preserved, albeit on a smaller scale than envisioned in his budget proposal. Granted, congressional leaders have said they want tax reform to be revenue neutral, meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures. That is easier said than done, however. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - all face severe resistance from vested interests. In Washington, where there is a will there is usually a dishonest way. Budget forecasts are typically made over a 10-year window. Thus, it is possible to lower taxes upfront and promise spending cuts and ill-defined revenue raising measures in the tail end of the budget window. Such a strategy would generate a positive fiscal thrust early on, while leaving the door open for Congress to dump any future spending reduction or revenue measures before they are actually implemented. Add to that the tax revenue that is projected to pour in from supply-side reforms, and the stage is set for a dollop of fiscal easing starting in early 2018. How likely is it that Republicans will pursue such a strategy? Very likely. As evidence, look no further than the fact that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney floated the idea on Wednesday of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. Investment Conclusions Chart 9Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well An obsessive focus on fiscal austerity hamstrung the recovery in many countries following the Great Recession. The irony is that fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year. Despite all the obituaries that have been written for the death of the Phillips curve, the data show that it is alive and well (Chart 9). Higher inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates once per quarter. The market is not prepared for this. Investors currently expect only 45 basis points in rate hikes over the coming 12 months. That is far too low. On the other side of the Atlantic, the ECB's months-to-hike measure has plummeted from 65 months in July 2016 to only 24 months today (Chart 10). Real rates are projected to be a mere 14 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time (Chart 11). Chart 10The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy Chart 11The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Poor demographics and high private-sector debt levels imply that the neutral rate of interest is lower in the euro area than in the U.S. And while the euro area may not be tightening fiscal policy any longer, the fact that its structural primary budget balance is 2.6% of GDP larger than America's means that the euro area's overall fiscal stance will contribute less to aggregate demand than in the U.S. This will force the ECB to keep rates lower for longer, causing the euro to weaken. Chart 12Widening Real Rate Differentials ##br##Support The Dollar Chart 13Speculators Are Long The Euro For ##br##The First Time In Three Years Incredibly, two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 41 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 12). We think this divergence has occurred because investors have been busy covering the euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections. However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will subside (Chart 13). With all this in mind, we are going short EUR/USD today with a year-end target of parity and a stop-loss of 1.14. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the structural primary budget balance from one year to the next. As a convention, we define a positive thrust as loosening in fiscal policy (i.e., a lower fiscal balance). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, and "China Needs More Debt," dated May 20, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Four separate indicators provide compelling evidence for a 'mini-cycle' in activity. 1. The bond yield. 2. The credit impulse. 3. The steel equity sector price. 4. The consumer price index (CPI). Right now, the mini-cycle is about 4 months into downswing whose average duration tends to be about 8 months. Hence, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations. Feature Central to our European investment philosophy is the existence of what we call a 'mini-cycle' in global activity. Right now, this cycle is about 4 months into a mini-downswing whose average duration tends to be about 8 months. Within this global mini-cycle the irony is that Europe itself has been a paragon of stability. Quarter on quarter growth has remained within a remarkably narrow 1.2-2.2%1 band for eight consecutive quarters. And the dispersion of growth across euro area countries now stands at a historical minimum. We expect the euro area's relative stability to persist given the recent bottoming of the euro area 6-month bank credit impulse. Nevertheless, for the European investment and inflation outlook, the global growth cycle is as important, or more important, than the domestic cycle. In highly integrated and correlated international markets, the absolute direction of European asset prices takes its cue from a global rather than a local conductor. The pace of consumer price inflation also tends to be a global rather than a local phenomenon. For example, through the past 10 years, the inflation cycles in the euro area, U.K. and U.S. have been near identical (Chart I-2). Chart Of the WeekThe Steel Sector Has A Clear Mini-Cycle Chart I-2The Inflation Cycle Is Global, Not Local In this light, the ECB now correctly assesses that "the risks surrounding the euro area outlook relate predominantly to global factors." As we go on to show below, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations. This would slow the ECB's exit from its current ultra-accommodative monetary policy. But because these downside inflation surprises were coming from outside the euro area, it would force other central banks to become even more dovish relative to current expectations. On this basis, we are very comfortable to maintain our relative return positions in European investments: expect euro currency outperformance; T-bond/German bund yield spread convergence; and euro area Financials outperformance versus global Financials. For absolute return positions, expect the relatively benign backdrop for bonds to continue into the summer months. Mini-Cycles: The Evidence Mounts In previous reports, we presented two pieces of evidence for economic mini-cycles. First, the global bond yield shows a remarkably regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle averaging about 8 months (Chart I-3). Second, the acceleration and deceleration of bank credit flows - as measured in the credit impulse - also exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle also lasting about 8 months (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Bond Yield Has A Clear Mini-Cycle Chart I-4The Credit Impulse Has A Clear Mini-Cycle We proposed that the bond yield and credit impulse cycles are inextricably embraced in a perpetual feedback loop: a higher bond yield weighs on credit flows; this slows economic growth which then shows up in activity data; in response, the bond market lowers the bond yield; the lower bond yield boosts credit flows, which lift economic growth; and so on... But as each stage in the sequence comes with a delay, the bond yield and credit impulse mini-cycles should be 'out of phase'. And this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Bond Yield And Credit Impulse Mini-Cycles Are Out Of Phase Now, to build an even stronger case for mini-cycles we will add a third and fourth piece of compelling evidence. The third piece of evidence is the steel equity sector price, which is an excellent real-time indicator of the growth cycle, and shows exactly the same mini-cycle profile as the bond yield (Chart of the Week). The fourth piece of evidence is the consumer price index (CPI) which also presents an identical mini-cycle profile (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Consumer Price Index Has A Clear Mini-Cycle As with the bond yield and the steel equity sector price, we have de-trended the CPI to better show the underlying cyclicality. But in the case of the CPI, our chosen de-trending rate of 2% has special significance: 2% is the inflation target for most central banks. Hence, if the de-trended CPI is rising, inflation is running above the 2% target; if the de-trended CPI is falling, inflation is running below the 2% target. In this regard, the mini-cycle in the CPI carries a disturbing asymmetry. Observe that in recent mini-upswings, inflation has just about reached the 2% target. But in each and every mini-downswing, inflation has substantially undershot the 2% target. Based on the regularity of the mini-cycle through the past 10 years, we can estimate that we are about half way into a mini-downswing. If so, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations, frustrating the ECB. Still, as the disinflationary surprises will emanate from outside the euro area, other major central banks might be even more frustrated. And this supports our aforementioned relative positions in European investments. What Is Your Most Provocative Non-Consensus View? The observation that inflation has struggled to reach 2% in mini-upswings, but substantially undershot 2% in each and every mini-downswing is very telling. The strong suggestion is that the recent modest uplift in inflation towards 2% could just be a mini-cyclical rather than structural phenomenon. The death of debt super-cycles combined with an incipient wave of Artificial Intelligence (AI) led automation still constitutes a very powerful structural deflationary force, which should not be underestimated. The technical pattern of bond yields also supports this thesis. Chartists will point out that the global bond yield is still in a well-defined pattern of lower highs and lower lows - which is to say a well-established downward channel (Chart I-7). And that it would take the yield to rise by a quarter (about 40 bps) to breach this channel. The German 30-year bund yield gives a very similar message (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Still In A Structural Downtrend: The Global Bond Yield... Chart I-8...And The German 30-Year Bund Yield At meetings, clients often ask for the most non-consensus investment view - something to which the street attributes a 10% chance, but to which I attribute a 50% or higher chance. Given the asymmetrical mini-cycle behaviour of both inflation and bond yields and the powerful structural forces of deflation shown in the preceding charts, here is my provocative answer: Perhaps the structural low in bond yields is not behind us; perhaps it is to come in the next major global downturn. But this is a personal view. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 At an annualized rate. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week, leaving us with four open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Fractal Trading Model * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

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

Special Report

Dear Client, I am on the road this week meeting clients. Instead of our regular Weekly Report, we are sending you a piece written by my colleague Brian Piccioni, head of our Technology Sector Strategy Service. In this Special Report Brian discusses how the limitations of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies make them extremely speculative investments. Furthermore he discusses the possibilities of blockchain technology for the financial service industry going forward. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature Summary Modern cryptocurrencies (virtual currencies based on cryptographic methods) originated with the introduction of blockchain technology and the simultaneous launch of Bitcoin. As we noted in our February 9, 2016 Special Report "Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology": Bitcoin has numerous deficiencies which expose its users to fraud; Governments are concerned with use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal activities; The market for Bitcoin is unregulated, liquidity is low, and there is good reason to be suspicious of market quotes for the currency; It is unlikely any virtual currency will become a form of legal tender absent government oversight; and Any investment in Bitcoin related activities should be viewed as highly speculative. In contrast, blockchain technology associated with Bitcoin: Can be applied by the financial services industry to reduce fraud and improve transaction times; Can reduce overhead associated with maintaining a trusted intermediary; Blockchain-related technologies are open and it is hard to imagine that any derivative technology would not be. Therefore, any unusual returns associated with knowledge of the mathematics or applications of blockchain are likely to be transient in nature. The technology itself, however, may lead to significant improvements in the velocity and security of certain types of transactions. Recent Developments Japan Legalizes Cryptocurrencies While we stand by our original analysis, it appears that Japan has allowed the use of virtual currencies effective April 1, 2017, albeit with significant oversight. Requirements include minimum capital levels and annual audits for exchanges. It is unclear to us why the Japanese government saw fit to introduce these changes, and it remains to be seen whether such oversight will be effective. Introduction Of Blockchain As Service Microsoft,1 IBM,2 and Deloitte3 have introduced blockchain services which should facilitate adoption by their traditional clients. We refer readers to the footnotes to explore the quickly changing nature of these firms' offering and we expect that other firms offering software and IT consulting for large enterprise clients will likely also introduce blockchain-related products. Although purists might observe that a centralized approach to blockchain removes the benefits of a distributed leger (see below), it also allows for the correction of many of blockchain's deficiencies (namely anonymity and irreversible transactions). This would make it more applicable in a regulated environment, assuming the implementation incorporates safeguards equivalent to a distributed ledger. Bitcoin Hype Appears To Be Subsiding While Enterprise Interest Is Growing Although we still see some coverage of the day-to-day moves in Bitcoin pricing, we get the sense that hype over cryptocurrencies is subsiding. Online discussions regarding speculating in cryptocurrencies appear to be less excited and neo-Libertarians appear to have moved on. Meanwhile, it seems that financial institutions are taking blockchain technology more seriously, and a large majority of financial services firms expect to deploy blockchain-related technologies over the next few years,4, 5 though some are more cautious on timing.6 Virtual Currencies And Bitcoin According to the ECB, a virtual currency: "... is defined as a digital representation of value, not issued by a central bank, credit institution or e-money institution, which in some circumstances can be used as an alternative to money"7 The IMF has produced Figure 1 which explains the differences between virtual, digital, and cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin was described in a 2008 paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".8 The paper outlines a technique (see Figure 2) which does away with the need for a trusted intermediary in executing secure transactions through the use of public key encryption and timestamps. Figure 1Overview Of Virtual Currencies Figure 2Simplified Diagram Of Bitcoin And Blockchain Function Blockchain technology, on which Bitcoin relies, provides: Anonymity of source and destination (neither buyer nor seller need to know each other); Irreversibility, such that no transaction can be reversed without the consent of the parties; and Security, subject to certain limitations, through redundancy and a peer to peer network. The mathematics of blockchain technology creates a verifiable distributed ledger among many computers on a peer to peer network. Because there is no central ledger, costs with maintaining it, arbitrating disputes and compensating for fraudulent transfers are all eliminated. A distributed ledger also means an asset can exist in only one place: there is no chance of embezzlement where an asset is purportedly on one set of books while actually being somewhere else. Bitcoin and blockchain technologies are not synonymous: there are an unlimited number of virtual currencies which can be produced using blockchain-like technologies and blockchain technology can be used to in non-currency applications. Limitations Of Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies present a challenge for governments as anti-money laundering regulations typically require enforcement and monitoring by trusted third parties to report suspicious transactions to authorities. A secure anonymous transaction system such as Bitcoin provides a ready workaround for money laundering and tax evasion, characteristics quickly embraced by the underworld. A complete analysis of the challenges posed by virtual currencies in general and cryptocurrencies in particular can be found in the IMF Staff Discussion Note "Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations".9 Where Theft Isn't Quite Illegal There are three ways to obtain Bitcoin: Exchange "real" money for Bitcoin via an online virtual currency exchange; Exchange good or services for Bitcoin; or "Mine" them using a computer to solve the cryptographic problems. Typically there are more consumers than sellers (i.e. more drug users than drug dealers), so most users convert money to and from Bitcoin via exchanges. Mining still goes on but as the cryptographic hashes become more difficult to solve, and the computing resources and electricity now needed to "mine" Bitcoin require a significant investment.10 Transaction Costs Are Not Insignificant Although blockchain removes the need for a trusted intermediary, introduction of an exchange creates an intermediary. A staggering number of Bitcoin exchanges have been "hacked", most likely by the operators themselves. Lack of regulatory oversight and the anonymous nature of the transactions, including theft, mean that such hacks are rarely solved and victims do not get their Bitcoin back even when they are. It is not clear whether theft of a virtual currency is, in fact, illegal: the question of whether theft of virtual property is theft is a subject of debate,11, 12 suggesting there is no clear answer. Even courts treat the matter differently when there is no issue of criminality besides the alleged theft.13, 14 Besides the money lost to users from fraud, high exchange rates associated with converting Bitcoin to and from "real" currency further add to costs, suggesting that for many users untraceable transactions is more important than transaction costs. Cryptocurrency Can Be Irrevocably Destroyed Or Lost One other feature of Bitcoin which presents a challenge is that it requires a private key or password to transfer it. This means that one can imagine a scenario where an embezzler steals money from a business and immediately converts it into Bitcoin. If caught the embezzler might threaten to destroy the private key, and therefore the money is lost forever. Similarly, the heirs of someone who placed his trust in Bitcoin rather than a bank may discover their inheritance is lost forever unless care was taken to ensure the private key is accessible to the estate after death.15 These issues might arise with any asset secured by a blockchain system unless there are built in safeguards against it. Illiquidity And Unregulated Markets Virtual currency markets have two important characteristics: they are extremely illiquid and unregulated making market manipulation relatively straightforward. Bitcoin, currently has a market cap of about $30B16 but has average daily volume in the range of about 3.4% of the market cap. Note that since transaction costs (though not the exchange rates) associated with Bitcoin are small and optional,17 and since the market is unregulated and anonymous, there is nothing to prevent individuals from wash trading or other forms of market manipulation.18 Chinese Yuan trading volume has rapidly increased since 2013, and up until January 2017 accounted for the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin trading (Chart 1). Although other factors may have influenced the rise in Chinese bitcoin trading, zero-fee trade structures (which lead to wash trading) contributed as well. Chinese Bitcoin trading volume collapsed in January 2017, after exchanges began charging trading fees, likely due to regulatory pressure from the government.19 This had a dramatic impact on the volume of Bitcoins traded globally (Chart 2), although the price has stayed high, indicating that marginal demand from Bitcoin bulls remains high enough to keep them in charge of this market for now. As has happened before in 2013, prices will likely drop once these bulls capitulate. Chart 1Bitcoin Trading Volume* Breakdown##br## (Top 3 Currencies) Chart 2Bitcoin Trading Volumes Collapsed ##br##After Chinese Exchanges Introduced Transaction Fees Unregulated financial systems devolve to fraud, and there is no reason to believe a market dominated by unsophisticated, anonymous, participants trading an intangible asset with uncertain liquidity where fraud or theft is not necessarily illegal is, in any way, an efficient market. Sadly, even mainstream media appear to ignore these realities when covering Bitcoin and related price moves. Distributed Legers And Their Application One of the most significant innovations associated with cryptocurrencies is the concept of a secure, distributed ledger (Figure 3, left panel) in lieu of a centralized ledger maintained by a trusted authority such as a bank or brokerage (Figure 3, right panel). Although the application of distributed ledgers has been with cryptocurrencies, there are many potential applications in traditional financial markets since assets such as stocks and bonds are held by a dealer while ownership can change frequently. Adoption of a distributed ledger system can20 and has been used to "facilitate the issuance, cataloging and recording of transfers of shares of privately-held companies on The NASDAQ Private Market". According to NASDAQ, "Blockchain technology has the potential to assist in expediting trade clearing and settlement from the current equity market standards of three days to as little as ten minutes".21 Aspects of Bitcoin which permit its criminal use are not inherent characteristics of blockchain, or distributed ledger technologies in general. The technology will almost certainly be improved in order to eliminate those problems by incorporating an audit trail (to reduce its use for tax evasion or money laundering), reversibility (to allow for the reversal of trading errors), and so on. Figure 3 Investment Summary And Implications For Currency Markets The long term investment impact of Bitcoin will likely be insignificant as exchanges and mining operations disappear into the dark net (i.e. the part of the Internet used by criminals). Investors should consider a position in Bitcoin, whether the currency or related services such as exchanges or mining, to be highly speculative. Blockchain Technology Is Open To Anyone The profusion of cryptocurrencies shows that blockchain technology can be adapted by anyone with the requisite understanding the mathematics involved. Time and again we find investor interest in certain emerging technologies rapidly dissipates once expertise becomes commonplace, regardless of the broader impact on society. We suspect a similar thing will happen with blockchain technology namely that it will become broadly used in a number of applications, however, besides the few companies which are acquired, few will become significant or profitable and most such acquisitions will be written down not long after they are consummated. Blockchain Technology Will Be Broadly Adopted Blockchain technology has broad implications for the financial services industry as a mechanism to reduce costs and transaction times. These are all unequivocal positives for the industry and society in general, but can be construed as deflationary and not conducive to sustainable profit gains. What Does This All Mean For Currency Investors? The progress in blockchain-related technology is a promising development for the future ease of transaction processing. However, due to the limitation embedded in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies are not yet at risk. For the time being, BTC and co. are still very speculative and volatile instruments that do not qualify as stores of value. In fact, the concerns of global governments with the use of cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes, as well as all the security risks still associated with their ownership, continue to be handicaps. This suggests that when it comes to the need for safety, these cryptocurrencies are not yet alternatives to the dollar, Swiss franc, and government bonds issued by the German and U.S. governments. Instead, gold and precious metals should remain the vehicle of choice for investors concerned with safety and the debasing of fiat currencies that may result from the large debt loads of the advanced economies' governments. As a result, we continue to think of these crypto currencies as high beta plays on the dollar and Chinese capital flows. Since BCA's view is that the dollar bull market is about to resume in full force, this implies that investors should fade the recent BTC rally. Moreover, the capital controls put in place by the Chinese authorities are working, and China is raising the cost of transacting in BTC. With BTC now expensive, and expected returns fading, this combination is likely to prove poisonous for Bitcoin. Another big selloff is thus likely. Final Thoughts A significant barrier to entry in technology markets is Intellectual Property (IP). Blockchain is an open technology, though is likely that extensions to blockchain could be made which the inventors hope will remain proprietary. However, there are several barriers to this happening: Any blockchain system is based on mathematics, and it is not clear when mathematics can be patented22, 23 Distributed ledgers work best when there are many users; and Any blockchain system would have to be open and understood to be trusted. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Paul Kantorovich, Research Analyst paulk@bcaresearch.com 1 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/solutions/blockchain/ 2 https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/ 3 http://rubixbydeloitte.com/ 4 http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/blockchain-in-financial-markets-how-to-gain-an-edge.aspx 5 https://www.ethnews.com/deutsche-bundesbank-optimistic-about-blockchain-for-financial-markets 6 https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/blockchain-for-finance-is-10-years-away-20170410 7 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemesen.pdf 8 https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 9 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1603.pdf 10 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable 11 www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/CanterLawRw/2011/21.pdf 12 https://virtualcrimlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/alls-fair-in-love-and-wow-virtual-theft-may-elude-real-life-prosecution/ 13 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328922/Teenager-dragged-court-giving-away-friends-VIRTUAL-gold-coins-online-fantasy-game.html 14 http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.html 15 http://www.dailydot.com/business/what-happens-bitcoin-when-you-die/ 16 http://coinmarketcap.com/ 17 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees 18 http://cointelegraph.com/news/115382/bitcoin-price-analysis-wash-trading-and-rising-volume 19 http://www.coindesk.com/chinas-big-three-bitcoin-exchanges-end-no-fee-policy/ 20 http://ir.nasdaq.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=938667 21 http://ir.nasdaq.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=948326 22 http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/28/judge-says-mathematical-algorithms-cant-be-patented-dismisses-uniloc-claim-against-rackspace/ 23 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Duration: U.S. growth expectations have become overly pessimistic. A Q2 rebound will lead to higher global bond yields and a steeper U.S. Treasury curve. UST / Bund Spread: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. USD Hedging Costs: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Feature Chart 1Global Recovery Will Persist The synchronized global recovery that took hold in the second half of 2016 has stalled so far this year. Measures of economic sentiment, such as the Global ZEW survey and our own Boom/Bust Indicator, have rolled over from high levels and global bonds have clawed back some of last year's lost returns (Chart 1). Year-to-date, the Bloomberg Barclays Global Government Bond index has returned +3%, after having lost more than 9% between the July trough in the Global ZEW index and the end of last year. In our view, a repeat of early 2016's global growth slowdown and bond market rally, which saw the Global ZEW index fall below zero and the Global Government Bond index return 11.6% in 2016H1, is not in the cards. The global economy is on much firmer footing than at this time last year. U.S. Growth: Past Peak Pessimism First quarter U.S. GDP growth was a disappointing 0.7%, but is poised to bounce back strongly in Q2. The volatile inventories component subtracted 0.9% from overall Q1 growth, harsh weather wreaked havoc on the March employment report and there continue to be problems with residual seasonality depressing first quarter GDP data.1 The outlook is much brighter moving forward. The latest employment report showed that the U.S. economy added a healthy 211k jobs in April and our model is pointing toward a further acceleration (Chart 2). Economic growth can be thought of as a combination of aggregate hours worked and labor productivity (Chart 3). With aggregate hours worked growing at 1.7% year-over-year and labor productivity growth having averaged 0.6% (annualized) per quarter since 2012, real U.S. GDP growth of around 2.3% seems like a reasonable forecast. Chart 2Labor Market Still Strong Chart 3Look For Above 2% Growth There is even some reason to suspect that labor productivity could strengthen during the next few quarters. A recent IMF paper2 attributed weak post-crisis productivity growth to a combination of structural and cyclical factors, but also noted that weak investment in physical capital may be responsible for lowering total factor productivity growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points per year in advanced economies during the post-crisis period. With leading indicators pointing to still further gains in fixed investment (Chart 3, bottom panel), we would not be shocked to see productivity growth enjoy a modest late-cycle rebound. Chart 4Stronger Productivity = Steeper Curve All else equal, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth would slow the increase in unit labor costs. Unit labor costs are a combination of wages (compensation-per-hour) and productivity (output-per-hour), and have historically tracked changes in the slope of the U.S. yield curve (Chart 4). Faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening, and slower wage growth with Fed easing. For this reason, all wage measures perform reasonably well tracking changes in the yield curve. But unit labor costs perform best because they also incorporate productivity growth, and low productivity growth can flatten the yield curve by pulling down long-dated yields. Rapid increases in compensation-per-hour and muted productivity growth have combined to give the yield curve a strong flattening bias during the past several years. Any increase in productivity growth would slow the uptrend in unit labor costs relative to other wage measures, allowing the yield curve to steepen. In fact, we continue to recommend that investors position for a steeper U.S. yield curve by going long the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade produces positive returns when the 2/10 slope steepens (Chart 4, panel 3), but has also returned +19 bps since we initiated the position last December, even though the curve has flattened since then. The reason for the trade's strong performance in an unfavorable curve environment is that the 5-year yield had been unusually elevated compared to the rest of the curve. Our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread versus the 2/10 slope showed that the 5-year note was one standard deviation cheap on the curve as recently as mid-March (Chart 4, bottom panel). This undervaluation has mostly dissipated and the 5-year note now appears only slightly cheap. For our curve trade to outperform from here, it will likely require the 2/10 slope to steepen.3 Bottom Line: With weak Q1 GDP now in the rearview mirror, we are likely past the point of peak pessimism on U.S. growth. Expect global bond yields to rise and the U.S. yield curve to steepen as the economic data start to reflect an environment of above-trend growth, in the neighborhood of 2% - 2.5%. European Growth & The Risk From China While the U.S. data have disappointed in recent weeks, as evidenced by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index having dipped below zero (Chart 5), the European economy has consistently bested expectations (Chart 5, panel 2). As a result, the Treasury / Bund spread has narrowed from high levels during the past few months. In practice, economic surprise indexes tend to mean revert because positive data surprises beget increasingly optimistic expectations. Eventually, overly optimistic expectations become too high a hurdle and the data start to disappoint. In our view, U.S. expectations have become unduly pessimistic while the Eurozone surprise index appears overdue for a correction. Against this back-drop, we expect the Treasury / Bund spread to widen in the near term as the large divergence between the U.S. and European surprise indexes starts to narrow. Further making the case for a wider Treasury / Bund spread is the recent performance of the Chinese economy. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy service recently observed that growth differentials between the U.S. and Europe are highly correlated with indicators of Chinese growth.4 This should not be overly surprising since Europe trades more with China and other Emerging Markets than does the United States. Along those lines, the IMF has calculated that a 1% growth shock to Emerging Markets impacts European growth by nearly 40 basis points, while it impacts U.S. growth by only 10 basis points.5 The worry at the moment is that Chinese monetary conditions have started to tighten, and China's Manufacturing PMI is rolling over alongside weaker commodity prices. These trends usually coincide with the underperformance of Europe relative to the U.S. (Chart 6). Chart 5Surprise Indexes Will Converge Chart 6Look To China To Trade UST / Bund Spread Our China Investment Strategy service highlights the importance of the trade-weighted RMB as a driver of Chinese growth.6 The RMB's 30% appreciation between 2012 and 2015 applied a massive deflationary force to China's economy, while its more recent depreciation helped boost producer prices, enhance profit margins and reduce the real cost of funding (Chart 7). Chart 7Monetary Conditions ##br##Still Fairly Stimulative More recently, the pace of the RMB's depreciation has slowed and this likely explains the weakness in China's Manufacturing PMI and commodity prices. Our China strategists are quick to note that while the pace of RMB depreciation has slowed, it is still not appreciating, and real interest rates deflated by the producer price index remain negative. In other words, monetary conditions have become somewhat less stimulative, but they should still be supportive of further economic growth. Although the Chinese economic data are likely to moderate in the coming months, barring the major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth will avoid a collapse and remain reasonably buoyant. Similarly, we would also expect European growth expectations to soften in the coming months, but growth is very likely to remain above trend and the ECB is still on track to adopt a less accommodative policy stance over the next year. In the most likely scenario, a few hints will be given at the June ECB meeting, and then an announcement that asset purchases will be tapered in 2018 will be made at the September meeting. The market will correctly assume that rate hikes will follow the taper, and this re-pricing of rate expectations will open up a window in the second half of this year when the Treasury / Bund spread can tighten. However, it is still too soon to adopt this position. Bottom Line: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. U.S. Bond Investors Should Expand Their Borders Divergences that have opened up between U.S. short-term interest rates and short-term rates in other developed countries mean that U.S. bond investors now face much lower currency hedging costs. In addition, increasingly negative cross-currency basis swap spreads have become a permanent feature of the post-crisis investment landscape, and unless significant regulatory changes occur, we expect they are here to stay. Combined, both of these factors make it incredibly attractive for U.S. bond investors to swap their U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and invest in foreign government bonds. In this week's report we explain why this is an attractive trade for U.S. investors and why it will likely remain so for quite some time. What Is The Basis Swap Spread? An excellent definition of the cross-currency basis comes from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) who define it as "the difference between the direct dollar interest rate in the cash market and the implied dollar interest rate in the [currency] swap market".7 In essence, the existence of a negative basis swap spread should mean that there is an opportunity to arbitrage the difference between interest rates in the cash market and implied interest rates in the currency swap market. However, post-crisis regulatory constraints on bank balance sheets appear to have made this arbitrage prohibitive. Banks are either unable or unwilling to arbitrage the basis swap spread back to zero, and this increases the cost of U.S. dollars in FX swap markets. As a quick example, we can calculate the 10-year German Bund yield hedged into U.S. dollars using currency forwards. Hedged yield = Unhedged yield - Cost of hedging Where: Cost of hedging = forward exchange rate / spot exchange rate In this case, we define the exchange rates as euros per 1 U.S. dollar. By covered interest rate parity, we can also calculate the cost of hedging as: Cost of hedging = (1 + euro interest rate + basis swap spread) / (1 + USD interest rate) Using current 3-month interest rates, this means that the cost of hedging from euros into U.S. dollars is: Cost of hedging = (1 - 0.36% - 0.3%) / (1 + 1.18%) = -1.82% This means that the 10-year German Bund yield rises from 0.42% to 2.24%, from the perspective of a U.S. dollar investor, after hedging the currency on a 3-month horizon. In other words, U.S. investors can significantly increase the average yield of their portfolios by lending U.S. dollars over short time horizons and investing the proceeds into non-U.S. bonds. In Chart 8 we show the difference this currency hedging makes for German, Japanese and French 10-year government bonds. Current hedged 10-year yields for all the major bond markets are also shown on page 13 of this report. But for how long can this trade continue? In short, it can continue for as long as U.S. short-term interest rates increase relative to non-U.S. short-term interest rates and for as long as basis swap spreads move further into negative territory. At the moment there is no widespread agreement on what drives the day-to-day fluctuations in the basis swap spread. The BIS has posited a model where dollar strength weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets, causing them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, and leading to increasingly negative basis swap spreads (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8Higher Yields Via Currency Hedging Chart 9Basis Swaps, Reserves And The Dollar Meanwhile, Zoltan Pozsar from Credit Suisse has identified a link between basis swap spreads and reserves on the Fed's balance sheet (Chart 9, bottom panel).8 Specifically, as the Fed winds down its balance sheet it will be draining cash reserves from the banking system and replacing them with Treasury securities. This could cause money to leave the FX swap market and flow into Treasuries. The result is less liquidity in the FX swap market and increasingly negative basis swap spreads. Interestingly, the run-up to the debt ceiling in the U.S. has presented a test of this view. To stay under the debt ceiling the U.S. Treasury department has drawn down its cash account at the Fed and removed T-bill supply from the market. The result has been a temporary increase in reserve balances. As the theory would have predicted, basis swap spreads have moved closer to zero as reserves have increased. Going forward, the Fed is very likely to start winding down its balance sheet later this year. In all likelihood this will serve to pressure basis swap spreads even further below zero. Meanwhile, short-term interest rates in the U.S. will probably continue to rise more quickly than in most other developed markets. This means that the cost of hedging should become increasingly negative for U.S. investors. In Chart 10 we show that as the cost of hedging becomes more negative, total returns from a USD-hedged position in German bunds tend to outpace total returns from a position in U.S. Treasuries. Similarly, Chart 11 shows that USD-hedged Japanese government bonds (JGBs) also tend to outperform U.S. Treasuries when the cost of hedging falls. Chart 10Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Germany Chart 11Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Japan We should note that the relationships between hedging costs and relative total returns shown in Charts 10 & 11 are not perfect, and there will be instances when Treasuries can outperform even if hedging costs continue to decline. However, in the long run, as long as short-term U.S. interest rates continue to rise more quickly than short-term interest rates in the Eurozone or Japan, and especially if the Fed's upcoming balance sheet contraction leads to more deeply negative basis swap spreads, then U.S. investors should continue to boost their yields by lending dollars and investing in bunds and JGBs. Bottom Line: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our U.S. Investment Strategy service took up the issue of residual seasonality in a recent report. Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Spring Snapback?", dated April 24, 207, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 IMF Staff Discussion Note, "Gone with the Headwinds: Global Productivity", https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2017/04/03/Gone-with-the-Headwinds-Global-Productivity-44758 3 Our outlook for the U.S. yield curve was discussed in detail in a recent report. Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 IMF Multilateral Policy Issues Report: 2014 Spillover Report https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/062514.pdf 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weeky Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?", dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7 http://www.bis.org/publ/work592.pdf 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/13/2187317/where-would-you-prefer-your-balance-sheet-banks-or-the-federal-reserve/ Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Global Equities At Record Highs Our Stock Market Timing Model points to a heightened risk of a correction for global equities over the next few months. However, the 12-month cyclical outlook still looks reasonably good thanks to accelerating earnings growth. Monetary policy has also yet to reach restrictive levels in most economies. Beyond the next 12 months, lofty valuations (especially in the U.S.), as well as the prospect of a meaningful economic slowdown late next year, will weigh on returns. Tactically, go short the S&P 500 with a target of 7.5% and stop-loss of 2.5%. This trade will automatically expire in six weeks. Cyclically, go long the December 2017 Brent Oil futures contract. Feature Aging Bull? Global equities have been on a tear lately. The MSCI All-Country Index reached a fresh record high this week (Chart 1). The index is up 14.1% in local-currency terms and 13.3% in U.S. dollar terms since early November. Our philosophy at BCA Research is that the best market calls come from combining informed qualitative analysis with time-tested quantitative indicators. With that in mind, this week's report distills the results of our proprietary Stock Market Timing Model. Our main conclusions are only partly reassuring. While the cyclical 12-month outlook for stocks remains reasonably auspicious, our model suggests that there is an elevated risk of a near-term correction. The model is also forecasting subpar long-term returns for stocks, particularly in the U.S. where valuations have become stretched. What Predicts Stock Returns? As we have documented in past research,1 a number of empirical regularities help predict stock market returns: 1. Stocks Tend To Perform Better When Economic Growth Is Accelerating The state of the business cycle is the most important driver of stock returns over horizons of around 12 months. Our model incorporates a variety of forward-looking cyclical variables that span different parts of the economy. For example, Table 1 shows the S&P 500 has delivered an average annualized real total return of 9.8% since 1948 whenever the gap between the ISM manufacturing new orders and inventories components - based on the prior month's ISM reading - was positive. In contrast, the S&P 500 has fallen by an average of 1.2% whenever the gap was negative. In the same vein, the S&P 500 has produced an average annualized real total return of 9.2% since 2000 whenever initial unemployment claims have declined over the prior three months, while losing 3.6% whenever claims have increased. The gap between new orders and inventories fell to 6.5 in April, down from a March reading of 15.5. The downtrend in initial unemployment claims has also flattened out. The moves in the ISM manufacturing index and unemployment claims, along with other measures such as auto sales, suggest that the economy is going through a soft patch. This softening, in turn, has been reflected in a steep drop in Citi's economic surprise index (Chart 2). Table 1Stocks Tend To Perform Better When Growth Is Accelerating Chart 2Some Signs Of Softening U.S. Economic Data... Still, we would not overstate the extent of the deterioration in the growth picture. Goldman's Current Activity Indicator remains near cyclical highs (Chart 3). The Atlanta Fed's preliminary Q2 growth estimate stands at 4.2%, while the NY Fed's Nowcast stands at 2.3%. If these preliminary estimates prove to be correct, Q1 will end up being just a temporary speedbump along the road to recovery. Consistent with this, a variety of forward-looking indicators suggest that the U.S. economy will grow at an above-trend pace over the remainder of the year (Chart 4). Durable goods orders are rising, business capex intentions have surged, building permits are trending higher, and consumer confidence is strong. Chart 3...But Growth Backdrop Still Solid... Chart 4...And Forward-Looking Indicators Remain Upbeat Globally, the picture remains reasonably upbeat, as highlighted by our Global Leading Indicator (Chart 5). Growth in the euro area is particularly strong. Green shoots are also appearing in beleaguered emerging markets such as Brazil and Russia. The Chinese economy has slowed a notch, but is still in much better shape than it was at this time last year. Above-trend global growth is helping to propel corporate earnings. The Q1 earnings season is off to a strong start. According to Thomson Reuters, EPS for the S&P 500 in the first quarter is expected to increase by 14.8% from year-ago levels. 75% of companies have beat earnings estimates, compared to the long-term average of 64%. 63% of companies have beaten revenue estimates, compared to the historic average of 59%. BCA's global earnings model predicts further upside for profits over the coming months (Chart 6).2 Chart 5Global Economy Is Doing Well Chart 6More Upside For Global Earnings Bottom Line: Cyclical indicators are somewhat mixed, but generally point to further upside for global stocks. 2. Stocks Tend To Perform Better When Financial Conditions Are Easing Easy money and equity bull markets tend to go hand in hand. Since 1970, the S&P 500 has delivered a real total average annualized return of 12.9% whenever our monetary indicator - which looks at money growth, bank lending, as well as short-term and long-term rates - was above its long-term average in the prior month, but only 0.5% when the indicator was below its long-term average. Similarly, the S&P 500 has risen at a 9.6% annualized pace whenever BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI) - which includes such components as credit spreads, the trade-weighted dollar, oil prices, home prices, and the relative performance of bank shares - was above its 250-day moving average, while gaining only 1.4% when the FCI was below its 250-day moving average. Chart 7 shows that our U.S. FCI remains slightly above its moving average, thanks to the decline in credit spreads over the past 12 months, along with higher stock market and house prices. However, the monetary indicator has now dipped below its respective moving average due to rising rates and slower broad money growth. Chart 7Financial Conditions Still Bode Well For Equity Returns, But U.S. Rate Hikes Loom Large Looking out, monetary and financial conditions are likely to be buffeted by various crosswinds. On the one hand, business lending should recover thanks in part to a rebound in manufacturing output (Chart 8). On the other hand, consumer lending standards have been tightening for some time and delinquencies and charge-offs for auto and credit card loans have edged higher, albeit from very low levels (Chart 9). Higher interest rates are also likely to weigh on credit demand. On balance, we expect a modest tightening in U.S. financial conditions over the remainder of the year. Chart 8Business Lending Should Recover Chart 9Tightening Consumer Lending Standards Outside the U.S., financial conditions are likely to stay accommodative. Unlike the Fed, most other central banks will keep rates near rock-bottom levels. In fact, real short-term rates in the euro area and Japan could even decline as stronger GDP growth lifts inflation expectations. Bottom Line: Financial conditions are still somewhat supportive for global equities, but are likely to become less so in the U.S. as the Fed continues to hike rates. 3. Stocks Tend To Perform Better When Sentiment Is Poor But Improving Warren Buffet once famously said that the secret to being a successful investor is to be "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful." There is no doubt that the level of sentiment can be a powerful contrarian indicator. However, our research indicates that the change in sentiment is also important in predicting equity returns. Trading rules that overweight stocks whenever sentiment over the prior weeks has improved from bearish levels, while underweighting stocks whenever sentiment has deteriorated from bullish levels, can significantly outperform a buy-and-hold strategy (Chart 10). This finding is similar to what one sees for individual stocks. As we discussed in our report on bottom-up stock picking,3 the best stocks tend to be the ones for which the consensus analyst opinion is bearish but improving. In contrast, the worst stocks are typically the ones for which the consensus analyst opinion is bullish but deteriorating. Today, market sentiment is on the bullish side (Chart 11). According to the Marketvane survey, the share of traders that expect stocks to rise over the coming weeks is only slightly below where it was during past stock market peaks. Bullish sentiment is less pronounced in the AAII's survey of individual investors. However, equity allocations among AAII members are about five points above their historic average, which limits the scope for "new money" to come into the market. Meanwhile, complacency is setting in (Chart 12). The VIX hit its lowest level in ten years this week. The Minneapolis Fed's market-based probability of a 20%+ correction in the S&P 500 has also dropped to below 10%, a level last seen during the peak of the previous bull market in 2007. Yale University's One-Year Confidence Index - which measures how likely market participants think that stocks will go up in the succeeding year - is near record levels for individual investors and at an absolute record high for institutional investors. U.S. margin debt, expressed as a share of GDP, has also risen above its 2000 and 2007 peaks. Chart 10Buy Stocks When Sentiment Is Poor But Improving Chart 11Equity Sentiment Is More Bullish Than Usual Chart 12Complacency Reigns Bottom Line: Current levels of bullish sentiment are a warning sign for equities. Should sentiment measures begin to deteriorate without a correspondingly large drop in stock prices, it will be time to head for the exit doors. 4. Stocks Tend To Perform Better In "Young" Bull Markets Following Pullbacks When is the trend your friend? The answer is over horizons of about two years. Returns tend to be positively serially correlated over this range. This means that if stocks have done well over the past two years, they are likely to continue doing well. Over shorter horizons of less than a year and longer horizons exceeding three years, the trend is not your friend - returns tend to be negatively correlated (Chart 13). Thus, if stocks have fallen over the past few weeks, they are likely to do better over the following few weeks than if they had risen. Likewise, if stocks have done well over, say, the past five years, then this is evidence that the bull market is getting long in the tooth. Obviously, these are not hard and fast rules, but they do give some guidance about what the future may have in store. The fact that the S&P 500 has done well over the past two years is a bullish sign, but the fact that the bull market is now in its eighth year and price gains have accelerated over the past few months (raising the risk of a blow-off top) are both bearish signs. The bull market is less mature outside the U.S., which works in favor of non-U.S. stocks. Relative momentum is also turning more favorable for non-U.S. markets, especially those in the euro area (Chart 14). Chart 13When Is The Trend Your Friend? Chart 14Relative Momentum Favors Non-U.S. Stocks Bottom Line: Recent price momentum is sending mixed signals for U.S. stocks, but somewhat more encouraging signals for non-U.S. stocks. 5. Stocks Tend To Perform Better When They Are Cheaply Priced Valuations are not especially useful as a short-term timing tool. However, they are by far the most useful tool for gauging long-term expected returns. This can be seen in the fact that there is a strong negative correlation between the Shiller PE ratio and subsequent real total returns (Chart 15). In the U.S., the Shiller PE ratio currently stands at 29. This is 45% above the post-1960 median and 82% above the median since 1880. If profit margins over the past 10 years had been what they were on average during the 1990s, the Shiller PE ratio would stand at 41 today - within reaching distance of its 2000 peak (Chart 16). U.S. valuations are even more stretched if one looks underneath the indices: The median NYSE stock currently trades at a higher price-to-earnings and price-to-cash flow ratio than at the 2000 peak (Chart 17). Chart 15Valuation Is The Single Best Predictor Of Long-Term Equity Returns Chart 16U.S. Valuations Are Stretched... Chart 17...Especially For The Median Stocks One could argue that a structurally lower neutral interest rate justifies a higher equilibrium PE ratio. There are plenty of reasons to challenge this argument - a lower neutral rate may foreshadow slow earnings growth, for instance - but even if one accepts its basic premise, it does not imply that stocks will do well in absolute terms. If you assume a lower discount rate in calculating the present value of future cash flows, you must also assume a lower long-term rate of return from owning stocks. You can't one have without the other. Valuations are generally more favorable outside the U.S., even if one adjusts for differences in sector weights across countries (Chart 18). Chart 18Valuations More Favorable Outside The U.S. Bottom Line: Valuations are stretched in the U.S. Long-term investors should favor non-U.S. stocks over their U.S. peers. 6. Stocks Tend To Perform Better During Certain Days And Months Of The Year Than Others No discussion of stock market-timing strategies would be complete without a few words on calendar effects (Table 2). Table 2When to Buy Stocks As with all stock market anomalies, there is a risk that any particular calendar pattern will disappear once it has been documented. For example, the "Blue Monday" effect, popularized by Yale Hirsch's 1987 book "Don't Sell Stocks On Monday," vanished soon after the book was published, only to make a comeback of sorts during the past 15 years. The so-called January Effect, which describes the tendency for stocks to do well at the start of the year, largely disappeared from the data at the turn of the century. In its place the "Santa Claus rally" was born, presumably reflecting the desire of traders to front run the January effect. Other calendar effects remain alive and well. The tendency for stocks to underperform during the summer and autumn months (the "Sell In May And Go Away" effect) is still around (Chart 19). The same goes for the so-called "turn-of-the-month effect" - the tendency for stocks to do best in the last few days and first few days of each month. Less well known is the tendency for stocks to do much better on FOMC days.4 Remarkably, the S&P 500 would be more than 50% lower today if one were to exclude all the days since 1990 when scheduled FOMC meetings took place from the return tally (Chart 20). Chart 19Sell In May And Go Away Chart 20The Fed Effect Bottom Line: High frequency, tactical investors may be able to profit from exploiting calendar effects in the data. Putting It All Together Our Stock Market Timing Model incorporates the factors discussed above. As Chart 21 illustrates, it has an admirable track record of predicting market returns. The current message from the model differs across time horizons. Tactically, over a three-month horizon, it suggests that stocks are overbought and vulnerable to a correction. This is mainly due to the sharp run-up in most global bourses over the past six months, as well as elevated levels of bullish sentiment. The fact that we are also entering the historically weak summer months is also a slight negative in our model. Cyclically, however, the picture still looks fairly reassuring: leading economic indicators and corporate earnings are in an uptrend. Financial conditions also remain accommodative. Thus, the model continues to predict modestly above-average returns for global equities over a 12-month horizon. Looking beyond the next 12 months, however, the picture begins to dim. The U.S. now accounts for over 50% of global equity market capitalization. Valuations for U.S. stocks have reached elevated levels. The U.S. economy is also approaching full employment, which means that growth will fall back to what so far has been a very anemic pace of potential GDP growth. Interest rates may also eventually reach punitive levels as the Fed continues to hike rates. All this suggests that the bullish window for global stocks, and U.S. stocks in particular, may close late next year. Two New Trades We are initiating two new trades reflecting our differing tactical and cyclical views: Tactically, go short the S&P 500 with a target of 7.5% and stop-loss of 2.5%. This trade will automatically expire in six weeks. Cyclically, go long the December 2017 Brent Oil futures contract (Chart 22). Our commodity strategists remain convinced that the supply backdrop for oil is tighter than the market is discounting. Add to that a firm demand picture, and we have a recipe for what is likely to be at least a temporary recovery in oil prices. Chart 21Message From Our Stock Market Timing Model Chart 22Go long December 2017 Brent Futures Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Market Timing: Holy Grail Or Fool's Gold?" dated May 27, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Bi-Weekly Report, "Quarterly Review And Outlook," dated April 7, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach To Bottom-Up Stock Picking," dated December 3, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 David O. Lucca., and Emanuel Moench, "The Pre-FOMC Announcement Drift," Federal Reserve Bank Of New York Staff Reports, August 2013. Appendix Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update We announced in late March that we are making major upgrades to our Tactical Asset Allocation Model. In the meantime, we will send you a concise update of our recommendations in the first week of every month based on a combination of BCA's proprietary indicators as well as our own seasoned judgement (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 1Global Asset Allocation Recommendations (Percent, Relative To Benchmark) Our tactical recommendations are based on a three-month horizon. Thus, at times, they can differ significantly from both our cyclical (12-month) and structural (12-month plus) recommendations. Compared to last month, we are cutting our tactical allocation to global stocks from +7 percentage points to zero (relative to benchmark), reflecting the heightened risk of a near-term pullback. We continue to maintain an underweight position in U.S. stocks within the equity portion of the portfolio. However, given the low-beta nature of U.S. stocks, most of the downgrade in overall equity exposure has occurred among European, Japanese, and EM bourses. We are also increasing our exposure to bonds from -9 to -6 percentage points, and increasing our tactical allocation to cash from +2 to +6 percentage points. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades