Monetary

Three macro "policy puts" are in jeopardy of disappearing or, at the very least, being repriced. Fed Put: Rising inflation has made the Fed more reluctant to back off from rate hikes at the first hint of slower growth or falling asset prices. China Put: Worries about high debt levels, overcapacity, and pollution all mean that the bar for fresh Chinese stimulus is higher than in the past. Draghi Put: Bailing out Italy was a no-brainer in 2012 when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. These factors, along with additional risks such as mounting protectionism, warrant a more cautious 12-month stance towards global equities and other risk assets. The fact that valuations are stretched across most asset classes only adds to our concern. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Buckle Up One of BCA's key ongoing themes is that policy and markets are on a collision course. We are starting to see this impending crash play out across the world. Higher Inflation Is Tying The Fed's Hands A slowdown in global growth caused the Fed to abort its tightening plans for 12 months starting in December 2015. Global growth is faltering again, but this time around the Fed is less eager to hit the pause button. In contrast to 2015, the U.S. economy has run out of spare capacity. The unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.75% in May. For the first time in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), there are more job vacancies than unemployed workers (Chart 1). Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in May, while the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers - the cleanest and most reliable measure of U.S. wage growth - rose at a robust 4% annualized pace in the first quarter. Labor market surveys, which generally lead wage growth by three-to-six months, are pointing to a further acceleration in wages (Chart 2). Chart 1There Are Now More ##br##Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 2U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate The Dollar Rally Can Keep Going Rising wages will put more income into workers' pockets, who will then spend it. Stronger demand can be partly satisfied by imports, but it will take a change in relative prices for that to happen. U.S. imports account for only 16% of GDP. Unless the prices of foreign-made goods decline in relation to the prices of domestically-produced goods, the bulk of any additional household income will be spent on goods produced in the U.S. This means that the dollar needs to strengthen. The Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar index is up 8% since the start of February. While we are not as bullish on the dollar as we were a few months ago, we still believe that the path of least resistance for the greenback is up. Our long DXY trade recommendation has gained 12.1% inclusive of carry since we initiated it. We are raising the target price from 96 to 98. A stronger dollar can help deflect some additional spending towards imports, but this won't be enough to fully cool the economy. Services, which generally cannot be imported, account for nearly two-thirds of GDP. Since it takes time to shift resources from goods-producing sectors to service sectors, any rising aggregate demand will boost service prices. Outside of housing, service-sector inflation is already running at 2.4%, a number that is likely to rise further over the coming year (Chart 3). This will keep the Fed on edge. Hard Times For Emerging Markets The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 4). Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Will ##br##Push Up Service Inflation Chart 4EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. The specter of trade wars only adds to the risks facing emerging markets. A larger U.S. budget deficit will drain national savings, leading to a bigger trade deficit. Rather than blaming his own macroeconomic policies, President Trump will blame America's trading partners. Global trade has already been flatlining for over a decade (Chart 5). Trump's trade agenda will further undermine the global trading system. Emerging markets will bear the brunt of that development. Chart 5Global Trade Has Crested Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive new stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. Today, Chinese growth is slowing again. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart 6). So far, the policy response has been fairly muted. Reserve requirements have been cut and some administrative controls loosened, but the combined credit and fiscal impulse has plunged (Chart 7). Onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have increased to multi-year highs. Bank lending rates are rising, while loan approvals are dropping (Chart 8). Chart 6Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chart 7China: Policy Response To Slowdown ##br##Has Been Muted So Far Chart 8China: Credit Tightening We have no doubt that China will stimulate again if the economy appears to be heading for a deep slowdown. However, the bar for a fresh round of stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid. Draghi's Dilemma The Italian economy was showing signs of weakness even before bond yields exploded higher. Domestic demand slowed to a mere 0.3% qoq in Q1. The PMIs, consumer confidence, and the Bank of Italy's Ita-Coin cyclical indicator all decelerated (Chart 9). Italy would benefit from a more competitive cost structure, but the political will to undertake the sort of reforms Germany implemented in the late 1990s, and that Spain implemented after the Great Recession, has been sorely lacking (Chart 10). Unwilling to take tough actions to improve competitiveness, the Five Star-Lega coalition government has proposed loosening fiscal policy to support demand. Chart 9Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Chart 10Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On ##br##The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy's shift towards populism is arriving at the same time that the ECB is looking to wind down its asset purchase program. This means that a key buyer of Italian debt is stepping back just when it may be needed the most. Getting the ECB to bail out Italy will not be as straightforward this time around. Recall that Mario Draghi and Jean-Claude Trichet penned a letter to the Italian government in 2011 outlining a series of reforms they wanted to see enacted as a condition of ongoing ECB support. The contents of the letter were so explosive that they precipitated the resignation of then-PM Silvio Berlusconi when they were leaked to the public. One of the reforms that Mario Draghi demanded - and the subsequent government led by Mario Monti ultimately undertook - was the extension of the retirement age. Italy's current government has explicitly promised to reverse that decision much to the consternation of the ECB and the European Commission. It was one thing for Mario Draghi to promise to do "whatever it takes" to protect Italy when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. Investment Conclusions The outlook for global risk assets is likely to be more challenging over the coming months. With that in mind, we are downgrading our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase again over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Although Treasurys could rally in the near term, higher U.S. inflation will push bond yields up over a 12-month horizon. Given that yields are positively correlated across international bond markets, rising U.S. yields will put upward pressure on yields in the rest of the world. As such, we recommend shifting equity allocations towards cash rather than long-duration bonds. We would also reduce credit exposure. Within the commodity complex, the backdrop for crude remains more favorable than for economically-sensitive metals. Investors should underweight EM equities, credit, and currencies relative to their developed market peers. The Fed needs to tighten U.S. financial conditions to prevent the economy from overheating. Chart 11 shows that EM equities almost always fall when that is happening. Chart 11Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks A stronger dollar will hurt the profits of U.S. multinationals. That said, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is a bit more defensive than it is elsewhere. On balance, we no longer have a strong view that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local-currency terms, and hence we are closing our trade recommendation to this effect for a loss of 5.4%. If macro developments evolve as we expect, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. That said, we would consider moving our 12-month recommendation temporarily back to overweight if global equities were to sell off by more than 15% over the next few months or the policy environment becomes markedly more market friendly. But at current prices, the risk-reward trade-off no longer justifies a high degree of bullishness. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Fed: The Fed delivered a confidently hawkish rate hike last week, but its projections for growth and, more importantly, inflation appear too cautious. With the market still not fully priced to the Fed's interest rate "dots", and with inflation expectations likely to continue rising to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. Maintain a defensive, below-benchmark U.S. duration stance. ECB: The ECB finally signaled the end of its current Asset Purchase Program, while sticking with its message that interest rate hikes are not likely until at least September 2019. The ECB's optimistic growth and inflation forecasts for the next couple of years may not be realized, but that will not prevent euro area bond yields from drifting higher as the ECB stops buying. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure. Feature Chart Of the WeekFed Vs. ECB: Still Diverging Central bank watching used to be a fairly black and white endeavor for investors and analysts. Policies were either "hawkish", "dovish" or perhaps "neutral". New buzzwords have entered the lexicon in the post-crisis era, however, as central banks have often struggled to adjust policy settings without upsetting financial markets. Now, the combination of action on interest rates and central bank communications can create additional types of policy moves, like a "hawkish hold" or a "dovish hike". With the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing policy moves last week, we dedicate this Weekly Report to our assessment of the actions taken by each bank, while trying to throw a few more monetary policy buzzwords into the mix to describe their decisions. Our conclusion is that while there is a need to see tighter monetary conditions on both sides of the Atlantic, the Fed is still delivering a combination of rate changes and language that is creating more upside for bond yields in the U.S. than in Europe (Chart of the Week). The Fed: Hawkishly Hawkish The Fed sounded a confident tone at last week's policy meeting, delivering another 25bp rate hike while also upgrading its growth and inflation forecasts for 2018. In the press conference following the FOMC meeting, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell expressed a very upbeat view on the state of the economy and even sounded a bit surprised as to how resilient growth has been. Yet it appears that the Fed is still erring a bit on the cautious side when it comes to its economic growth projections and, by association, its inflation forecast. The Fed now expects U.S. real GDP growth of 2.8% in 2018, up a mere 0.1 percentage point from its projection from last March. Yet the economy has accelerated in the recent months and the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is calling for growth to hit a whopping 4.8% in the second quarter. While that model tends to over-predict actual growth outcomes, it does underscore how strong the current run of U.S. data has been and how the risks on the economy are tilted to the upside. That strength is also manifesting itself in robust business confidence, as evidenced by the latest read on small business optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that was released last week.1 The overall NFIB Optimism Index reached the second highest level in its 45-year history in May, while a record number of respondents felt that now was a "good time to expand" (Chart 2). Reports of positive earnings trends also hit a record high, while reports of positive sales growth were the highest since 1995. At the same time, concerns about labor quality hit the second highest level in the history of the NFIB survey, while reports of compensation increases hit a record high. This booming economy is also impacting price-setting behavior, with reports of actual and planned price increases hitting the highest levels in a decade. Against this backdrop of very robust growth, the Fed did lower its forecast for the unemployment rate for 2018 (now 3.6%), 2019 (3.5%) and 2020 (3.5%). Yet its 2018 projections for headline and core PCE inflation were only nudged up by 0.2 percentage points (to 2.1%) and 0.1 percentage points (to 2.0%), respectively. Inflation is expected to remain around those levels in 2019 and 2020. Does the Fed still believe that NAIRU in the U.S. is 4.5%? If so, there is a serious disconnect between its unemployment and inflation forecasts - one that is more likely to be resolved via higher inflation, especially if those readings from the NFIB data are to be taken at face value. The FOMC did send a mildly hawkish message last week through its interest rate projections (the "dots"). They added one more expected rate increase to 2018, which would bring the total amount of hikes this year to 100bps. However, no cumulative additional increases were added beyond 2018, which means that the Fed merely pulled forward a rate hike that would have occurred in 2020. We still anticipate that a 25bps-per-quarter pace of hikes is the most likely outcome for the Fed over the next year, especially now that the inflation-adjusted funds rate is hovering around the Fed's own estimate of the neutral "r-star" level. That path of rates is still not fully discounted in U.S. money markets (Chart 3), however, which suggests that Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure from a higher front-end of the yield curve. Chart 2U.S. Economy Is On Fire Chart 3Market Still Not Fully Converged To Fed Dots The Fed will likely err on the side of caution regarding the pace of rate increases, however, given the fact that a) wage growth is still relatively subdued given how tight the labor market is; b) TIPS breakevens are not yet at levels consistent the with the market believing that the Fed has achieved its inflation target; c) the rising U.S. dollar is tightening monetary conditions at the margin; and d) the growing threat of a U.S.-vs-The-World trade war may pose a more serious risk to global growth. Yet all those factors are likely not enough to derail the booming U.S. growth locomotive. Only a move to an outright restrictive Fed monetary policy will make that happen. However, at the moment, the Fed seems more willing to tolerate a potential overshoot of its inflation target than to try and slow an overheating economy. This means that Treasury yields will likely rise through higher inflation expectations, as well as through a convergence of market pricing to the Fed's interest rate projections. Stay below-benchmark on U.S. Treasury market duration exposure. Bottom Line: The Fed delivered a confidently hawkish rate hike last week, but its projections for growth and, more importantly, inflation appear too cautious. With the market still not fully priced to the Fed's interest rate "dots", and with inflation expectations likely to continue rising to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. Maintain a defensive, below-benchmark U.S. duration stance. The ECB: Dovishly Hawkish The ECB announced last week what had widely been expected by the market - that there would be no net new bond buying in its Asset Purchase Program (APP) after December of this year. Yet at the same time, the central bank was able to convey a dovish signal on the timing and pace of rate hikes after the bond purchases stop. Financial markets latched onto the latter message, triggering a rally in euro area bond markets and a daily decline of two big figures on EUR/USD. The central bank sounded a very confident tone - perhaps, surprisingly so - on both the growth and inflation outlook. ECB President Mario Draghi described the deceleration of the euro area economy in the first quarter as a "soft patch" and that the 0.4% (non-annualized) growth in real GDP was "still high growth". Draghi went even further in his description of the strong economy seen last year, and the slowing seen so far in 2018, as being largely driven by external demand: "Basically, it's a pullback from the very high levels of growth in 2017, mostly justified by an extraordinary pickup in exports, which is unlikely to repeat itself now, compounded by an increase - an undeniable increase in uncertainty - and for a variety of reasons really, mostly geopolitical reasons, and some temporary and supply-side factors at both the domestic and the global level as well as weaker impetus from external trade." That assessment for the cause of the Q1/2018 growth slowdown is accurate, as the peak in euro area data such as the manufacturing PMI, industrial confidence and the OECD's leading economic indicator all occurred alongside a slowing of export growth (Chart 4). Yet the ECB may be too optimistic in thinking that the softening in export demand will prove to be "temporary". In the ECB's updated macroeconomic projections, the forecast for real GDP growth in 2018 was revised down from 2.4% to 2.1%, largely due to a reduction in expected export growth from 5.3% to 4.2%. Yet the GDP forecasts for 2019 (+1.9%) and 2020 (+1.7%) were unchanged, and the export growth projection for 2019 was upgraded from 4.1% to 4.4%. That is a view that may prove to be too optimistic. Global trade activity is slowing fast at the moment, primarily on the back of diminished Chinese demand (bottom panel), and leading economic indicators (outside of the U.S.) have rolled over. With U.S. President Donald Trump now turning his protectionist trade rhetoric into actual tariff actions - aimed not just at China but also Europe - the risks are all to the downside for the ECB's growth projections. We find it a bit surprising that the market reacted so strongly to the ECB's indication that interest rates would be kept at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019".2 That language is consistent with the message that the ECB had been signaling prior to last week that any rate hikes would not take place soon after the net new bond purchases end. Taking the ECB's statement at face value, it would suggest that September 2019 is the first possible "live" meeting where a rate hike could occur. According to a survey of economists taken in early June by Bloomberg, the consensus view was that the net bond purchases would stop in December, the ECB would raise the deposit rate in the second quarter of 2019, and then raise the main refinancing rate (the ECB's primary policy rate) from 0% in the third quarter of 2019.3 This is broadly consistent with the pricing we see in our own "months-to-hike" indicator for the euro area, which shows that a 10bp rate increase is priced into the euro Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve by August 2019, but with a full 25bps of increases not discounted until March 2020 (Chart 5). That date for the 10bp hike was at June 2019 on the day prior to last week's policy meeting, so the market repriced more or less in line with the ECB's messaging on the potential timing of that first hike. Chart 4Is The ECB Too Optimistic On Growth? Chart 5Market & ECB Are In Agreement Draghi gave no specific indication as to which of the ECB's policy rates would be moved first - when the ECB finally does decide to move - nor what the size of that first move could be. Yet even if the ECB "goes small" on that first move and does not move in 25bp increments like the Fed has been doing, that outcome has now been largely been discounted in the money market yield curve. Our view remains that there will be no rate hikes from the ECB until euro area core inflation and, more importantly, inflation expectations are much higher (Chart 6). As a rough rule of thumb, the ECB's previous rate hikes during the mid-2000s tightening cycle, and even the much-criticized hikes in 2011 that played a role in triggering the European Debt Crisis, did not occur until market-based inflation expectations measures like the 5-year CPI swap, 5-years forward were above 2% (bottom panel). Realized core euro area inflation was pushing toward 1.5-2% during those prior two episodes, which the ECB is not projecting to occur until later in 2019. So with core inflation only at 1.1%, and with inflation expectations still mired at 1.7%, the market is correct to take the ECB at its word that it will not even consider raising rates until next September. So why did bond yields and the euro decline after last week's ECB meeting? Perhaps it was Draghi mentioning in his press conference that bond purchases could be restarted, if needed: "[...] APP is not disappearing; it remains part of the toolbox. It's a new instrument of monetary policy that will be used for contingencies that we don't see now, and that's what we anticipate. But it remains now as a normal instrument to monetary policy." This is not a provocative statement, of course. The Bank of England did exactly that - restarting its quantitative easing (QE) program after the shock of the 2016 Brexit vote - while the Fed has also stated that it could do more rounds of QE in the future if the situation required it (but only after the funds rate had been cut back to the zero once again). Perhaps by leaving the door open a crack to ramping up the APP again, at a time when euro area growth is decelerating and core inflation remains well below target, the ECB was seen by the market to be hedging its bets with regards to exiting the current extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. The ECB has been trying to communicate consistently over the past few months that the decisions on stopping bond purchases and hiking interest rates should be treated separately. In other words, a decision on the former would not have any sort of immediate implications for the latter. We discussed the possibility of the ECB avoiding a Fed-style Taper Tantrum when it exited its APP program back in March.4 Our conclusion was that while the ECB had been absorbing a greater share of government bond issuance than the Fed ever did during its QE programs, the "flow effect" of the ECB buying fewer bonds as it exited the APP would still push up euro area bond yields through the normalization of negative term premia (Chart 7). The ECB has been arguing that the "stock effect" of it owning such a large share of the euro area bond market has created a scarcity of risk-free assets that will keep yields subdued. Yet as was shown in the U.S. experience, the bigger impact on U.S. Treasury yields from its QE program was the signaling effect on the expected path of interest rates post QE. That can be seen by the very tight correlation between the term premium on 10-year U.S. Treasury yields and our measure of the market's expectation for the neutral rate fed funds rate - the 5-year U.S. OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year U.S. CPI swap rate, 5-years forward (Chart 8). A similarly tight correlation exists in the euro area interest rate markets (bottom panel), suggesting that the ECB may have a tougher time keeping a lid on bond yields than they expect if the market starts to raise the expected path of interest rates at a faster pace than the ECB would like to see. Chart 6ECB Will Not Hike Until Inflation ##br##Expectations Are Much Higher Chart 7The 'Flow Effect' Of Less ECB Buying##br## Will Boost Bond Yields Chart 8Markets Do Not Treat Tapering ##br##& Rate Hikes Separately For now, the uncertainty of the current state of euro area economic growth, combined with core inflation that is still undershooting the ECB's target, suggests that euro area bond yields will remain subdued in the near term. Yet as the ECB begins to cut its pace of asset purchases after September of this year, a slow drift higher in euro area bond yields is still the most likely outcome. If the euro area economy rebounds as the ECB expects, then the risk of an even bigger move higher in yields would increase as the market reprices the ECB rate hike cycle, although only if accompanied by an acceleration in core inflation and inflation expectations. We are maintaining our strategic recommendation to stay below-benchmark on duration risk within euro area bond portfolios. In terms of country allocation, we are sticking with our modest underweight stance, however, although we do still prefer owning core European bonds over U.S. Treasuries (especially on a currency hedged basis into U.S. dollars), as the risks of higher bond yields are still much greater in the U.S. than in Europe. Bottom Line: The ECB finally signaled the end of its current Asset Purchase Program, while sticking with its message that interest rate hikes are not likely until at least September 2019. The ECB's optimistic growth and inflation forecasts for the next couple of years may not be realized, but that will not prevent euro area bond yields from drifting higher as the ECB stops buying. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure. ­­ Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.nfib.com/surveys/small-business-economic-trends/ 2 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2018/html/ecb.is180614.en.html 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/draghi-s-bond-buying-era-seen-ending-as-ecb-gears-up-for-talks 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Monetary Policy: Position for rate hikes of 25 bps per quarter for the next 6-12 months and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Yield Curve: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be mitigated by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. IG Credit: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Feature "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. [...] "That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, By Douglas Adams Jerome Powell put his stamp on Fed communications at last week's FOMC meeting. He trimmed 100 words from the policy statement and began his post-meeting press conference with a concise "plain-English" summary of how the economy is doing. In short: "the economy is doing very well". But while he expressed confidence in the Fed's assessment of the economy, he was also keen to point out areas where the outlook is cloudier. His central theme seemed to be that we must delineate between those questions that can be addressed by the Fed's reading of the economic data and those that are better left to the philosophers in Douglas Adams' novel. The Chairman stressed the uncertainty surrounding two concepts in particular: the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) and the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate, even advising that "we can't be too attached to these unobservable variables." But what can we say about these traditionally important policy guideposts? And more importantly, how should we think about them when formulating an investment strategy? The Importance Of NAIRU Chart 1The Fed's Projections One issue that came up repeatedly in the Chairman's press conference was the seeming disconnect between the Fed's labor market projections and its inflation projections. The Fed expects the unemployment rate to fall far below NAIRU during the next two years, and yet it anticipates only a mild overshoot of its inflation target (Chart 1).1 Ultimately this disconnect will be resolved in one of two ways. Either the Fed is underestimating the inflation pressures that will result from running the unemployment rate so far below NAIRU and will be forced to hike rates more quickly than anticipated, or it will eventually revise its estimate of NAIRU downward. From an investment perspective, this disconnect will only matter if inflation starts to rise more quickly than anticipated and the Fed is forced to ramp up the pace of rate hikes. We discussed this possibility in a recent report and concluded that, on a 6-12 month horizon, the odds of the Fed hiking more quickly than its current 25 bps per quarter pace are low.2 This is principally because the Fed will likely tolerate a fairly substantial overshoot of its inflation target before it feels the need to tighten more quickly. The Importance Of The Neutral Rate For bond investors the theoretical concept of the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate is much more important. This interest rate represents the threshold between accommodative and restrictive monetary policy. When the fed funds rate is above neutral we should expect the pace of economic growth to slow and inflation pressures to dissipate. At present, the majority of FOMC participants estimate that the neutral fed funds rate is between 2.75% and 3%. At the Fed's current 25 bps per quarter pace, the funds rate will reach neutral by the middle of next year (Chart 2). Chart 2The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The important question for investors is whether the Fed will start to slow its rate hike pace at that time, or whether it will revise its estimate of the neutral rate based on trends in the economy. Chairman Powell's emphasis on uncertainty makes us lean toward the latter. In a recent report we outlined three factors to monitor that will help us determine whether monetary policy is accommodative (fed funds rate below neutral) or restrictive (fed funds rate above neutral).3 The first factor is the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP relative to the fed funds rate (Chart 3). Historically, the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP falling below the fed funds rate is a reliable (though often lagging) signal that monetary policy has turned restrictive. A more leading signal of restrictive monetary policy is the proportion of nominal GDP that comes from the most cyclical (or interest rate sensitive) sectors of the economy. Those sectors being consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software. When cyclical spending declines as a proportion of overall growth it is often a sign that the fed funds rate is above its neutral level (Chart 3, panel 2). Finally, we also recommend monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Gold tends to appreciate when the stance of monetary policy becomes more accommodative and depreciate when it becomes more restrictive. The steep decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 even preceded downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate (Chart 4). Going forward, an upside breakout in the price of gold would be a signal that we should revise our estimate of the neutral fed funds rate higher. Conversely, a large decline would suggest that monetary policy is turning restrictive and we should think about calling the cyclical peak in bond yields. Chart 3Tracking The Neutral Rate I Chart 4Tracking The Neutral Rate II Bottom Line: Rather than rely on current estimates of unobservable variables like NAIRU and the neutral rate of interest, investors should monitor developments in the economy and consider how those estimates might evolve over time. For now, investors should expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Gradualism And The Slope Of The Curve The Fed's fairly explicit guidance that rates will rise by 25 bps per quarter is quite helpful when formulating expectations about the slope of the yield curve. For example, we know that the current 1-year par coupon Treasury yield of 2.35% is priced for exactly 100 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months with no term premium. In other words, investors today should be indifferent between an investment in cash and an investment in a 1-year Treasury note if they are 100% certain that the Fed will stick to its 25 bps per quarter hike pace for the next 12 months. We can also forecast where the 1-year Treasury yield will be six months from now under a few different scenarios (Table 1). The forward curve is consistent with a 1-year Treasury yield of 2.69% six months from now, and we calculate that it will be 2.83% if the market moves to fully discount a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter until the end of 2019. If the market only prices in the Fed's median funds rate projection, which calls for three hikes in 2019, then the 1-year Treasury yield will be between 2.62% and 2.81% six months from now, depending on which meetings in 2019 those three rate hikes are delivered. Table 1Forecasting The 1-Year Treasury Yield The main takeaway from these observations is that even in the most hawkish scenario the 1-year Treasury yield will only rise to 2.83%. This is 48 bps above its current level and a mere 14 bps more than what is already priced into the forward curve. Now let's consider the long-end of the curve. The 10-year and 20-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates currently sit at 2.12% and 2.10%, respectively. If inflation expectations become re-anchored around the Fed's 2% target during the next six months, which we expect they will, then both of these rates will reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 5). This alone will apply between 20 bps and 40 bps of upward pressure to the 20-year Treasury yield. The nominal 20-year Treasury yield is currently 2.98% and the forward curve is priced for it to rise to 3.01% in six months. In the most hawkish scenario where the Fed lifts rates 25 bps per quarter and long-maturity yields remain constant, the 1/20 Treasury slope will flatten by 48 bps during the next six months. In the more likely scenario where Fed rate hikes coincide with the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations, the 1/20 slope will flatten by 28 bps or less. Meanwhile, our model of the 1/7/20 butterfly spread shows that it is priced for 55 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months (Chart 6). Or put differently, there is so much extra yield pick-up in the 7-year bullet relative to the duration-matched 1/20 barbell that being long the bullet and short the barbell will be profitable unless the 1/20 slope flattens by more than 55 bps. Chart 5Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Chart 6Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Bottom Line: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be offset by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. Risk Update On May 22 we initiated a tactical long duration position premised on extended net short positioning in the bond market and the high likelihood of negative near-term data surprises.4 We have seen considerable movement in our indicators during the past two weeks - positioning is now much closer to neutral (Chart 7) and our model no longer expects data surprises to turn negative (Chart 8). Therefore, this week we remove our tactical long duration recommendation. The biggest current risk to our below-benchmark duration stance is the large divergence that has opened up between U.S. growth and the rest of the world (Chart 9). This divergence is putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar and, much like in 2015, is starting to hurt growth in emerging markets, as we discussed last week. Chart 7Bond Market Positioning Chart 8Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Chart 9Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk But dollar strength and emerging market weakness is not an imminent threat to higher U.S. yields. Using the 2015 experience as a template, we see in Chart 9 that U.S. yields did not fall until after emerging market financial conditions and global growth had already troughed. In fact, it was not until dollar strength and weak global growth culminated in a dramatic tightening of U.S. financial conditions that the Fed finally signaled a slower pace of rate hikes and Treasury yields declined (Chart 9, bottom panel). Similarly, we don't think the Fed will react to a strong dollar and weak foreign growth until the impact is felt by U.S. risk assets. With U.S. growth still elevated and the dollar having appreciated only modestly so far, we think Treasury yields will avoid this risk during the next few months. Nonetheless, the divergence between U.S. and foreign growth is a risk that bears close monitoring. We will not hesitate to alter our duration stance if the dollar continues to appreciate and the divergence appears close to a breaking point. The Best Time To Move Down In Quality In last week's report we reviewed our assessment of where we stand in the credit cycle. That assessment determines whether we should be overweight or underweight investment grade corporate bonds relative to a duration-equivalent position in Treasuries. This week we zero-in on our allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and consider how we should allocate between the different credit tiers (Aaa, Aa, A and Baa). In next week's report we will look at positioning across the different maturity buckets and industries. We begin our analysis with the four Bond Maps presented in Charts 10-13. These Bond Maps show risk-adjusted return potential on the y-axis. Specifically, the number of months of average spread tightening necessary to achieve the excess return threshold listed in each map's title. The risk-adjusted potential for losses is shown on the x-axis. In this case, it shows the number of months of average spread widening required to underperform Treasuries by the amount listed in the title. Chart 10Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 50 BPs Threshold Chart 11Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 100 BPs Threshold Chart 12Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 200 BPs Threshold Chart 13Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 300 BPs Threshold Credit tiers plotting closer to the bottom-left of the Bond Maps have less potential for return and less risk. Credit tiers plotting closer to the upper-right have greater potential for return and more risk. What we find particularly interesting is that when we set a low return threshold, such as +/- 50 bps, the credit tiers plot almost right on top of each other. In other words, an allocation to Baa-rated corporate bonds gives you a much greater chance of earning 50 bps with about the same risk of losing 50 bps as the other credit tiers. But as we increase the excess return threshold the risk/reward trade-off between the different credit tiers becomes more linear. In Chart 13 we see that Baa-rated bonds have a greater chance of earning 300 bps than the other credit tiers, but also carry a significantly greater risk of losing 300 bps. Chart 14Down-In-Quality Works ##br##Best When Vol Is Low This leads to an interesting conclusion. A macro environment where we would expect low excess return volatility is also one where moving down in quality within investment grade corporate bonds is most beneficial from a risk/reward perspective. Conversely, moving down in quality will improve the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio by less (and might even hurt the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio) in a highly volatile return environment. To test this theory, we first recognize that the excess return volatility of the investment grade corporate bond index is tightly linked with its duration-times-spread (DTS). Low DTS environments have lower excess return volatility, and also less of a spread differential between the lower and higher credit tiers (Chart 14). With this in mind we split the historical time series of monthly corporate bond excess returns into four quartiles based on the index DTS (Table 2). We also exclude recessions from our sample, meaning this analysis is only valid during periods of economic recovery. Not surprisingly, the results show that the standard deviation of monthly excess returns increases alongside index DTS. But we also see that the average return advantage in the Baa-rated credit tier is lower when the index DTS is higher. Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns By Credit Tier (1989-Present)* When the index DTS is between 3 and 4.5, the reward/risk ratio in the Baa-rated credit tier exceeds the average of the other three credit tiers by 0.13. This advantage falls to 0.07 when the DTS is between 4.5 and 6.7; and falls further to 0.04 when the DTS is between 6.7 and 9.7. In the highest DTS quartile, the Baa-rated credit tier provides a lower reward/risk ratio than the average of the other three credit tiers. At present the index DTS is 8.4. This puts us in the second highest quartile relative to history, and is consistent with a 12-month standard deviation of monthly excess returns of roughly 77 bps for the corporate bond index. In this environment we should expect down-in-quality allocations to positively impact the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio, but not by as much as in lower DTS environments. Bottom Line: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 In order to display a longer history, Chart 1 shows the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of NAIRU rather than the Fed's. At present both estimates are very close. The CBO estimates NAIRU to be 4.65% and the Fed's median projection calls for a NAIRU of 4.5%. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020. The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment, wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment, while prices rise only gradually. Gold and Treasuries were the big winners and the dollar was the big loser in previous trade spats. Feature The dollar rose 1%, but gold, the S&P 500, and U.S. Treasury yields sunk last week amid a busy calendar of U.S. economic data and the Fed's new forecasts. The stats and the FOMC projections confirmed that the U.S. economy is already at full employment and that the market is underpricing the number of Fed hikes planned for this year. Meanwhile, U.S. President Trump's meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un provided some relief on the geopolitical front, but there is still uncertainty on trade over impending tariffs on China. Chart 1Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level##BR##On TIPS Breakevens BCA's base case remains that U.S. equities will not be subject to an over-aggressive Fed until mid-2019 and that increasing bond yields are not a threat. That said, the timing is uncertain and depends importantly on how inflation and inflation expectations shift in the coming months. Inflation is only gradually moving higher at the moment and the Fed is willing to tolerate an overshoot of the 2% target. However, some inflation hawks at the Fed are worried given that the economy is already at full employment and expected to accelerate this year. The uptrend in inflation could suddenly become steeper in this macro environment. Alarm bells will ring when inflation hits 2.5% and the central bank will switch from normalizing policy to targeting slower growth, putting risk assets under pressure. We are also on the watch for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will become more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate (Chart 1). That would be an important signal to trim exposure to risk assets. Although Trump's meeting with Kim lowered geopolitical risk, BCA's strategists note that the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization"1 are more relevant subjects than what happens on the Korean peninsula. While North Korea may still stir up concern, we recommend that investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. Moreover, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.2 Two More In '18 As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 2FOMC And Market Mostly##BR##Aligned On Economy And Rates Instead of three, the Fed now expects to deliver a total of four rate hikes in 2018. For 2019, the Fed continues to project a further three rate hikes. And for 2020, the Fed now believes only one rate hike will be warranted, down from two hikes in its previous forecast. What this means is that the Fed has simply brought forward one rate hike from 2020 to 2018. It left its median projection for the level of the Fed funds rate in 2020 unchanged at 3.375%. Moreover, the Fed kept its estimate of the neutral rate unchanged at 2.875%. In other words, the Fed is forecasting a marginally faster pace to rate hikes, but it has not changed its outlook for the full extent of the tightening cycle. This minor change to the policy outlook should not disrupt financial markets. Prior to last week's FOMC meeting, Fed funds futures were already pricing a 50% probability of a fourth rate hike this year. The bigger question is whether more upward adjustments to the interest rate outlook lie ahead. On this front, there are inconsistencies in the Fed's economic projections. In terms of the long-run steady state, the Fed believes the potential growth rate of the economy is 1.8% and NAIRU is 4.5%. Yet the Fed is forecasting real GDP growth of 2.4% and 2.0% (i.e. above-trend) for 2019 and 2020, respectively, but expects both the jobless rate and core inflation to remain steady at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Above-trend growth should imply a further decline in the unemployment rate. And a jobless rate that's well below NAIRU should imply an acceleration in inflation. In turn, this should mean a higher path for interest rates. But rather than higher interest rates, the inconsistency in the Fed's economic forecasts can also be resolved in other ways. First, the Fed could simply be too optimistic on growth. If growth is weaker, then unemployment and inflation forecasts could be proven right. Second, the Fed's estimates of trend growth and NAIRU may be incorrect. If trend growth is higher and NAIRU is lower, the pressures on resource utilization and inflation will be less. Bottom Line: The tweaks to the Fed's interest rate projections are too small to have a material impact on financial market pricing. However, there is a risk that the inconsistencies in the Fed's economic forecasts will be resolved with more hawkishness in 2019. This could then prove problematic for global risk assets, depending on the evolution of inflation. Are We There Yet? The U.S. economy reached full employment in Q1 2017. The unemployment rate crossed below the Fed's measure of NAIRU in March 2017, a whopping 93 months after the start of the current expansion. Chart 3 shows that in the long expansions3 in the 1980s and 1990s, the economy reached full employment sooner; 54 months in the 1980s and 72 months in the 1990s expansion. After the economy attained full employment in the 1980s and 1990s, an average of another 27 months passed before the unemployment rate troughed. This means that the trough will occur in mid-2019 and our view is that the rate will bottom at around 3.5% in mid-2019.4 Moreover, the 1980s' economic recovery lasted another 34 months once the economy hit full employment and another 47 months once full employment was breached in the 1990s. If this historical pattern holds, then the next recession will begin in late 2020. This date is consistent with our prior work5 on the start date of the next downturn. Chart 3The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, as a share of the labor force, move lower for another two years, on average, after labor market slack disappears (Chart 4, panel 2). The monthly non-farm payrolls job count follows a similar pattern and it does not turn negative for another four years (panel 3). The Conference Board's jobs easy/hard to get shows that the labor market is hotter than in the previous long expansions (panel 4). The conclusion is that the labor market will continue to tighten for another year or so, consistent with our outlook. Wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment. Chart 5 shows increases in the average hourly earnings (AHE), the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and compensation per hour after the unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in the 1980s and 1990s. However, unit labor costs (ULCs) did not accelerate in those years until well after the economy hit full employment. Many of these measures of wage inflation are also on the upswing today. However, none of the indicators are rising as quickly as they did in the 1980s and 1990s (See Appendix Table 1 for more details on performance of labor market, wage and inflation metrics after the economy reaches full employment). Inflation initially remained tame even after labor market slack was taken up in the previous two long expansions. Chart 6 shows that neither headline nor core CPI accelerated sharply after the economy arrived at full employment in the '80s and '90s. However, headline CPI inflation began rising not long after full employment was reached. It took a little longer for core inflation to perk up. Moreover, inflation tends to peak as the unemployment rate troughs. This occurs, on average, about three years after the unemployment rate crosses below NAIRU. Chart 4The Labor Market When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 5Wages And Compensation When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 6Inflation When The Economy##BR##Is At Full Employment Bottom Line: The U.S. economy has been at full employment since early 2017, but investors should be patient if they expect a marked acceleration in inflation. Inflation is already at the Fed's target and BCA expects two more rate hikes this year and at least three more increases in 2019 as inflation moves closer to 2.5%. Stay underweight duration. The labor market is as tight as it was at this point of the previous two long expansions. Moreover, the trends in inflation and wages are similar, although from a lower level. That said, while inflation is more muted today, interest rates are much, much lower, and the Fed does not want a major overshoot. If we follow the same path as the previous two long expansions, then inflation will rise only gradually, and the next recession is a ways off. But watch for an acceleration in ULC, because in the average of the last two long expansions, an acceleration in ULC coincided with an acceleration in core CPI inflation. That would cause the Fed to become more aggressive. Trump's Focus On China The U.S. is an old hand at trade wars and economic conflicts, with an endgame of dollar depreciation and compromises on trade.6 Since 1970 there have been seven major trade disputes involving tariffs, including the one that began in March of this year. Some were brief and several of those periods overlapped. Moreover, many other factors affected investment returns, including recessions, wars, major terrorist attacks, and financial crises. As a result, these periodic trade tiffs make it difficult to discern the implications for the financial markets. During episodes of trade-related uncertainty, stocks underperform Treasuries, the dollar falls both pre- and post-dispute, and gold performs much better both during and after. Treasuries are the most consistent performer, and this asset class beat stocks during five of the six periods. Meanwhile, the dollar fell during 5 of the 6 trade spats (Table 1). Chart 7 shows the performance of a wider set of U.S. financial assets before, during, and after trade tensions erupt. Table 1U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, The Dollar, Gold And Trade Disputes Chart 7U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats We begin our discussion of trade spats and their implication for financial markets in the early 1970s. In August 1971, with the dollar steeply overvalued, President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard and imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports. The purpose of the tariff was to force the U.S. allies to appreciate their currencies against the dollar. Some appreciation occurred as a result of the Smithsonian Agreement, but the effects were short-lived. The U.S. could not afford to alienate its allies amid the Cold War and removed the restrictions four months later. Table 1 shows that S&P 500 increased by nearly 40% in the year prior to the 1971 trade spat, but the economy was recovering from the 1969-70 recession. Equities easily beat Treasuries (+17%), the dollar declined by 3%, and gold jumped by 22%. However, during late 1971, the S&P 500 underperformed Treasuries, the dollar dropped by 5%, and gold was little changed. In the 12 months after the trade issue was resolved, U.S. stocks beat bonds, the dollar continued to move lower, and gold surged. This occurred as inflation ramped up. In a trade dispute episode during the 1980s, then President Reagan and a Democrat-leaning Congress became concerned with trade deficits and a sharply rising dollar. The Plaza Accord in 1985 consisted of a German and Japanese promise, once again, to appreciate their currencies. From 1985-89, a U.S.-Japan trade war was waged over Japan's growing share of the U.S. market and certain unfair trade practices affecting goods such as cars, semiconductors, and electronics (Chart 8). The combination of yen appreciation, voluntary export restraints and tariffs, resulted in compromises, and in the early 1990s the U.S. removed Japan from its list of targets. Chart 8The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s During the 1985-89 dispute, the U.S. stock market crashed, economic growth surged, inflationary pressures mounted, and the Fed hiked rates. Nevertheless, stocks crushed bonds as the dollar tumbled by 40% and gold soared by 30% (Table 1). Note that gold fell in the year before the trade dispute began and in the year after it ended. In the late 1990s, a series of trade disputes erupted between the U.S. and the European Union, most significantly on a tax device that allowed companies reduced taxes on profits derived from export sales. The EU won its case against the U.S. at the WTO and the U.S. eventually repealed the offending provisions in its tax code. At the same time, from 1999-2001, the U.S. contested EU policies on banana imports. Then in March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs affecting Europe, but these were subsequently reversed in December 2003 in the face of retaliatory threats. Trade tension in the late 1990s and early 2000s developed alongside the tech boom, the 2001 recession and recovery, and the first Gulf War. The 10-year Treasury outperformed the S&P 500 as Bush's steel tariffs were in effect, but the early part of this period coincided with the accounting scandals that buffeted U.S. equity markets. The U.S. dollar dropped nearly 25%, although the Fed cut rates in 2002 and 2003. Gold climbed 34% in this period, outpacing both stocks and bonds. President Trump's trade positions are reminiscent of both Nixon's and Reagan's policies and his trade team includes a notable veteran of the U.S.-Japan trade war, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The focus, however, is not entirely the same. True, there is still a fixation on privileged manufacturing industries like steel and autos, both in the Section 232 actions on steel and aluminum and in the NAFTA renegotiation. But there is today a heightened focus on China's abuses of the international trade system, in particular its technology theft and intellectual property violations (the Section 301 actions). For investors, the critical issue is to separate the two areas of focus. The U.S. grievances with Europe, NAFTA, and Japan will cause more volatility this year and beyond, but are ultimately more manageable than those with China. U.S.-China trade tensions are caught up in a Great Power rivalry that will likely persist throughout this century, making trade tensions a permanent feature of the relationship going forward.7 China's rapid military growth and technological acquisition threaten U.S. global dominance. China will view any imposition of tariffs by the U.S., or demands for dramatic RMB appreciation, as a strategic attempt to derail China's rise. Moreover, while Congress will not attack President Trump for retreating from the trade war with the allies, it will attack President Trump for compromising on China. Recent U.S. elections have swung on Rust Belt Midwestern states that resent America's deindustrialization. In 2020, Democrats will attempt to reclaim their credibility as defenders of American workers and "fair trade," especially against China. President Trump stole their thunder with his protectionist platform. There is unlikely to be a "trade dove," and especially not a "China dove," in the White House from 2020-24. Bottom Line: The U.S. has historically used punitive trade measures to force its allied trading partners to appreciate their currencies versus the dollar. It has also sought to protect politically sensitive industries. Today, however, the trade war with China is inextricably tied to a strategic conflict that will play out over decades. Trump will likely impose Section 301 tariffs on China after June 15 and any deal to avoid confrontation will merely delay the decision on tariffs until after November's mid-term elections. Investors should recall that bonds beat stocks, the dollar fell, and gold rose during previous periods of trade tension. We also note that shifts in correlations between key U.S. asset classes tend to occur as trade spats begin and end, especially in the past 30 years (Chart 9). Moreover, gold usually continues to climb and the dollar falters even after these disputes are resolved. Chart 9U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tightening Up", published May 14, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000," published March 30 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," published April 12, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," published March 14, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1Key Labor Market And Inflation Indicators At Full Employment

Highlights The following four investment themes are likely to play out over the next couple of years: The yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts will narrow, one way or the other. The 10% undervaluation of the trade-weighted euro - as assessed by the ECB itself - will eventually correct. As the euro area's structural over-competitiveness gradually adjusts, euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos. Swedish real estate and Swedish real estate equities, which are both very richly valued, will underperform. Feature What connects last Sunday's dysfunctional G7 Summit with this week's ECB policy meeting? The answer is the euro area's €450 billion export surplus. Specifically, the €300 billion export surplus in Germany which equals 8% of its GDP - an export surplus that is squarely in President Trump's cross-hairs (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus The interesting thing is that the euro area hasn't always run an export surplus. Before 2012, the euro area's trade with the rest of the world was more or less in balance. Even Germany's export surplus was half of its current size. To put it in Trumpian terms, fewer Mercedes were "rolling down New York's Fifth Avenue." What caused the imbalance to surge in recent years? Was it punitive tariffs or restrictive trade practices in Germany? No, the answer is much simpler than that. ECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus The export surplus in the euro area and in Germany is just a mirror-image of the euro exchange rate (Chart I-2). As the euro became undervalued, it made euro area exports more competitive and foreign imports into the euro area less competitive. This assessment of euro area over-competitiveness comes straight from the horse's mouth. The ECB's own indicators show that the euro area remains over-competitive by around 10%, meaning the euro is still undervalued by about 10%.1 In turn, the euro's substantial undervaluation is a near perfect function of the yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts (Chart I-3). It follows that the ultimate cause of the euro area's glaring imbalance is ECB policy itself - specifically, the extreme experiment with bond buying and negative interest rates. Chart I-2ECB Policy Has Driven Up The ##br##Euro Area's Export Surplus Chart I-3The ECB's Expansive Monetary Policy Is ##br##Responsible For The Euro's Undervaluation As Germany's former Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, explained: "When ECB chief Mario Draghi embarked on the expansive monetary policy, I told him he would drive up Germany's export surplus... I promised then not to publicly criticise this policy. But then I don't want to be criticised for the consequences of this policy." The ECB counters that it targets neither the euro exchange rate nor the trade balance; it sets policy to achieve its mandate for price stability. It argues that it is further from its mandate for price stability compared with the Federal Reserve because, ostensibly, the euro area is at a different point in the economic cycle compared with the U.S. This requires the ECB to set an ultra-accommodative policy compared with other central banks. The undervalued euro and trade surplus are the unavoidable spill-overs of this relative monetary policy. ECB Spill-Overs Felt Far And Wide However, one important reason that euro area inflation is underperforming U.S. inflation has nothing to do with the economic cycle. Rather, it is because the official measures of inflation in the euro area and the U.S. are defined differently (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). The euro area's Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) omits the consumption costs of owner-occupied housing, whereas the U.S. consumer price basket includes them at a very substantial 25% weight. Homeowners will testify that the cost of maintaining their homes constitutes one of their largest expenses, and that these costs tend to rise faster than other prices. Using the U.S. as a guide, we estimate that a euro area inflation measure that correctly included home maintenance costs would be running higher than HICP inflation by an average of 0.5 percentage points a year (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Euro Area Inflation##br## Is Underperforming... Chart I-5...Because Euro Area Inflation Omits ##br##Owner-Occupied Housing Costs Chart I-6Including Owner-Occupied Housing ##br##Costs Adds 0.5% To Inflation Just because the statisticians do not measure owner-occupied housing costs in the euro area HICP, it doesn't mean that homeowners do not feel these costs. In Germany, measured inflation is now running at 2.3%, so the true inflation that households feel is running closer to 3%. Meanwhile, interest rates on savings accounts are stuck near zero, which means that German savers are seeing the real value of their savings erode by 3% every year. As Der Spiegel magazine put it to ECB Chief Economist, Peter Praet: "Can you understand why so many Germans regard the ECB as the greatest threat to their personal wealth?" Spill-overs from the ECB's ultra-accommodative policy have also been felt across the Baltic Sea. The Riksbank and the Norges Bank have had to shadow the ECB to prevent a sharp appreciation of their currencies versus the euro. The trouble is that ultra-low and negative interest rates have been absurdly inappropriate for the booming Scandinavian economies. So ECB policy may have generated spill-over housing bubbles in Sweden and Norway (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7ECB Spill-Overs Felt In Scandinavia Chart I-8Scandinavian Real Estate Appears Richly Valued Hence, a seemingly innocuous 'definitional' difference between the consumer price baskets in the euro area vis-à-vis the U.S. explains: the bulk of the shortfall in euro area inflation; the ECB's justification for ultra-accommodation; the undervalued euro; the euro area's €450 billion trade surplus; deeply negative real interest rates in Germany; and putative housing bubbles in Sweden and Norway. The main argument we hear in the ECB's defence is that the central bank is at the mercy of its treaty. If the treaty demands ultra-accommodation then the ECB must deliver it. But this argument is wrong. The ECB treaty only asks that the central bank delivers "price stability", leaving the ECB with substantial flexibility in how it precisely defines price stability. With this in mind, the ECB - and other central banks - should use this definitional flexibility to minimize differences with other central banks. Because in a world of integrated capital markets, the spill-overs from seemingly innocuous definitional differences are felt far and wide, resulting in political backlashes and economic imbalances. Imbalances Must Correct In The Long Run Ultimately though, economic imbalances must correct, and the corrective mechanism is economic, financial, or political feedback loops, or some combination of these. On this basis, we reiterate four investment themes that are likely to play out over the next couple of years: The yield shortfall on German long-dated bunds versus the equivalent U.S. T-bonds and U.K. gilts will narrow, one way or the other. The 10% undervaluation of the trade-weighted euro - as assessed by the ECB itself - will eventually correct. As the euro area's structural over-competitiveness gradually adjusts, euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Euro's Undervaluation Corrects, It Will Help Euro Area Domestics And Hurt Exporters Swedish real estate and Swedish real estate equities, which are both very richly valued, will underperform. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/balance_of_payments_and_external/hci/html/index.en.html The ECB uses three metrics to assess the euro area's competitiveness versus its major trading partners: GDP deflators, CPIs, and unit labour costs. The average of the three metrics suggests that the euro is undervalued by around 10%.The assessment of euro undervaluation assumes that the major euro area economies entered the monetary union at a broadly correct level of competitiveness against each other and against their other major trading partners. This assumption seems valid, given that the net external position of these economies were all in equilibrium at the onset of monetary union. Fractal Trading Model We are pleased to report that our long SEK/GBP currency position hit its profit target of 3% and is now closed. This week we note that the relative performance of two classically cyclical sectors, oil and gas versus financials, is technically stretched and at a 65-day fractal dimension which has accurately predicted the last two major reversals. Hence, our recommended trade is short euro area oil and gas versus euro area financials. Set a profit target of 6% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Fed: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. Credit Cycle: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Emerging Market Debt: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Feature The Federal Reserve meets this week and will deliver the second rate hike of the year, bringing the target range for the federal funds rate up to 1.75% - 2%. With that hike already fully discounted, investors will be more concerned with parsing the post-meeting statement, Summary of Economic Projections, and Chairman Powell's press conference for clues about the future path of rates. We expect only minor changes to the statement, though the Committee could decide to tweak its promise that "the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run". Such a change would simply acknowledge that if gradual rate hikes continue, then the federal funds will move close to most estimates of its neutral (or equilibrium) level within the next 12 months. This touches on an important question for bond investors. Would the Fed actually start to slow the pace of rate hikes once the funds rate reaches its estimated neutral level? Or will it need to see some evidence of decelerating economic growth before slowing the pace of rate hikes below its current 25 bps per quarter pace? Chart 1 shows why this question is important. The shaded boxes in that chart outline a "gradual" rate hike path of 25 bps per quarter. The Fed has been lifting rates at this pace since late 2016. The "x" markings denote the median expected fed funds rate from the Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers, and the "F" markings denote the Fed's own median projections. Notice that there are two "F"s shown at the end of 2018. This is because an equal number of FOMC participants (6) expect a fed funds rate of 2% - 2.25% as expect one of 2.25% - 2.5%. We expect the median will coalesce around the 2.25% to 2.5% range by the end of tomorrow's meeting. Chart 1The Outlook For Rate Hikes Notice in Chart 1 that both primary dealers and the Fed expect to deviate from the quarterly rate hike pace around the middle of next year. This would be consistent with the pace of hikes starting to slow as the fed funds rate approaches its currently anticipated neutral level near 3%. But how confident is the Fed in its estimate of that neutral rate? We would argue that its confidence should be quite low. We are not alone in this assessment. In one of Janet Yellen's final speeches as Fed Chair she warned against placing too much confidence in estimates of the neutral rate.1 [T]he neutral rate changes over time as a result of the interaction of many forces, including demographics, productivity growth, fiscal policy, and the strength of global demand, so its value at any point in time cannot be estimated or projected with much precision. We expect that the current FOMC will heed this warning, and if there are no signs of economic deterioration by the middle of next year, then the Fed will continue to hike rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter and estimates of the neutral rate will be revised higher. We examined what could potentially make the Fed deviate from its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace, by hiking either more quickly or more slowly, in a recent report.2 Crucially, Chart 1 shows that not only is the market priced for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes as we reach the middle of next year, it is also priced for a slower pace of rate hikes than is expected by the Fed or the primary dealers. This divergence means that below-benchmark portfolio duration continues to make sense on a 6-12 month horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. A Quick Update On Our Tactical Long Position On May 22 we advised clients with a short-term (0-3 month) horizon to position for lower U.S. bond yields in the near term.3 This call was premised on two catalysts. First, bond market positioning had become excessively net short. That picture now looks more mixed (Chart 2). Net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures remain deep in "net short" territory and the Marketvane survey of bond sentiment is still "bearish", but the JP Morgan Duration Surveys for both "all clients" and active clients" have moved somewhat closer to neutral. The second catalyst was that our auto-regressive model pointed to strong odds of a negative reading from the U.S. Economic Surprise Index during the next month (Chart 3). This remains the case, but the reading from our model has moved much closer to the zero line. Chart 2Positioning Now Closer To Neutral Chart 3Surprise Index Still Low Taken together, our two indicators no longer send a resounding "buy bonds" signal. But given the deeply net short Treasury futures positioning and the low level of the surprise index, we are inclined to maintain our tactical buy recommendation for another week. We will re-assess again next week based on trends in the surprise index and the positioning data. The Fed & The Credit Cycle The Powell Fed has so far not been kind to credit spreads. Since February our index of financial conditions has tightened considerably, driven by a combination of falling equity prices, wider quality spreads and a stronger dollar (Chart 4). Yet, the Fed seems relatively unconcerned and is broadly expected to lift rates this week. All in all, the Powell Fed seems less concerned with responding to tighter financial conditions than was the Yellen Fed. Chart 4How Much Pain Can The Fed Take? There is some truth to this observation, though we think the difference has more to do with recent trends in inflation than with any change in approach between the two Fed Chairs. As inflation pressures mount, the Fed is marginally less concerned with responding to weakness in financial markets and marginally more concerned with preventing an inflation overshoot. This is why we will reduce our allocation to corporate bonds once our monetary indicators tell us that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. Monetary Indicators Long maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are the primary indicators we are monitoring in this regard. When both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, that will be consistent with past periods of well-anchored inflation expectations and we will start reducing exposure to corporate credit (Chart 5). But we should not rely solely on one indicator. It is conceivable that the financial crisis ushered in a structural shift (possibly due to stricter banking regulations) and that the level of TIPS breakevens consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations is now slightly lower.4 For this reason we also pay attention to the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). This model is designed to output the percent chance that inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months, and we have found that corporate bond excess returns decline significantly when it exceeds 15%.5 It currently sits at 13%. Finally, it's also a good idea to pay attention to core PCE inflation itself. The year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation jumped sharply in recent months, but it has not yet returned to the Fed's 2% target (Chart 6). It is therefore still reasonable to expect that inflation expectations are not consistent with target inflation. It is likely that many investors still have doubts about whether inflation will recover to the Fed's target. Chart 5Credit Cycle: Monetary Indicators Chart 6The Fed's Inflation Model Those doubts would probably fade if the year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation actually rose to 2% and stayed there for several months. At that point we would have to conclude that inflation expectations are well anchored, whatever the level of TIPS breakeven rates. Incidentally, the recent bounce in core inflation brought it back in line with the reading from Janet Yellen's Phillips Curve model that she presented in a speech from 2015.6 In the context of this model, a continued decline in the unemployment rate will pressure inflation slowly higher, meaning that we expect to receive a signal from our monetary indicators sometime this year. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds at that time. It will be very interesting to hear from Chair Yellen herself when she visits the BCA Conference in September, and we hope to gain insight not only about her inflation forecast but also about how the Fed thinks about its responsiveness to financial markets, and most importantly, about how the Fed is likely to manage the tightening cycle as the funds rate approaches its estimate of neutral. Credit Quality Indicators Outside of Fed policy and the inflation outlook, we are also closely monitoring the relationship between profit growth and debt growth for the nonfinancial corporate sector. Leverage rises whenever debt growth exceeds profit growth and rising leverage tends to coincide with widening credit spreads (Chart 7). Nonfinancial corporate debt grew at an annualized rate of 4.4% in the first quarter, while pre-tax profits actually contracted at an annualized rate of 5.7%. As a result, our measure of gross leverage ticked higher from 6.9 to 7.1. More broadly, profits grew 5.8% in the four quarters ending in Q1 2018, only slightly faster than the 5.2% increase in corporate debt. This does not provide much of a buffer, and it will not take much to send profit growth below debt growth on a sustained basis. In fact, we expect that if labor compensation costs continue to accelerate we will see leverage start to rise more meaningfully in the second half of this year. Our overall Corporate Health Monitor improved noticeably in the first quarter (Chart 8). But this large move will almost certainly reverse in Q2. The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart 8, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (Chart 8, bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. Chart 7Leverage Is Poised To Head Higher Chart 8Tax Cuts Helped Balance Sheets In Q1 Bottom Line: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Still No Opportunity In Emerging Market Debt We pointed out in a recent report that a persistent divergence between U.S. and non-U.S. economic growth was the most likely catalyst that could cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes.7 A divergence between strong U.S. growth and weaker growth in the rest of the world puts upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, and this is a particular problem for many emerging markets that carry large balances of U.S. dollar denominated debt. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service published a Special Report last week that explains in detail this particular problem faced by emerging markets and shows which countries face the most pressing debt concerns.8 For U.S. fixed income investors another important question is whether the recent strength in the U.S. dollar, and weakness in emerging market currencies, has resulted in an opportunity to shift out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. On that note, Chart 9 shows that the average option-adjusted spread for the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond index recently dipped below the average spread for the investment grade USD Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign index. However, we think it is still too soon to move into emerging market debt. After adjusting for differences in duration and spread volatility between the two indexes, we come up with a measure of "Months-To-Breakeven". This indicator shows the number of months of spread widening required for each index to lose money relative to U.S. Treasuries. By this measure, U.S. Corporate bonds still look attractive compared to investment grade EM Sovereigns. At the country level, Chart 10 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for the USD-denominated sovereign debt of several major EM countries. It also shows each country's foreign funding requirement, a measure of the foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for each country to cover any shortfall in current account transactions and service its foreign currency debt. Chart 9EM Sovereigns Are Still Expensive Chart 10USD-Denominated Emerging Market Debt: Risk/Reward At The Country Level For the Baa-rated countries, Colombia, Mexico and Indonesia all offer spreads similar to what can be found in the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond market. The Philippines looks quite expensive, but Russia looks cheap compared to U.S. Corporates and has one of the lowest foreign funding requirements of any EM country. In High-Yield space, Turkey is fairly priced relative to Ba-rated U.S. junk, while Brazil and South Africa both look expensive. Argentina also looks expensive relative to B-rated U.S. junk. Bottom Line: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170926a.htm 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 We explored some possible reasons for such a shift in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt", dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Year Of Living Dangerously The latter half of May was a wild wide for global financial markets, which had finally shown signs of healing after the VIX shock from earlier in the year. The cause this time was Italian political turmoil as the populist 5-Star Movement/League coalition attempted to form a government full of fiscal largesse, sprinkled with a hint of euroskepticism. Investors got spooked into thinking that a 2011-style euro "redenomination" (i.e. breakup) risk premium might once again need to be priced into Peripheral government bond yields. The rout in Italian BTPs felt like a classic sovereign debt crisis, emerging markets style. There were even reports of Italian banks providing no price quotes for Italian debt on electronic trading platforms - the 21st Century version of dealers "not answering their phones" during a crisis. All that was missing was an IMF delegation heading to Rome with checkbook in hand. The announcement late last week that the coalition would get another shot at forming a government, rather than throwing Italy into fresh elections that could turn into a referendum on euro membership, restored order to Italian financial markets. The meltdown in Italian yields was almost as rapid as the melt-up, with the 2-year BTP yield ending last week around 1%, almost two full percentage points lower than the peak in yields seen just a few days earlier, but still much higher than the sub-zero yields seen as recently as May 15th. We made a timely decision to cut our recommended stance on Italian debt to underweight two weeks and we are maintaining that call despite the respite from the political turmoil.1 (NOTE: we are putting out a joint Special Report next week with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy on June 13th, a day later than our usual Tuesday publishing slot, which will discuss the political outlook for Peripheral Europe and what it potentially means for their bond markets). Our more pessimistic view on Italian bonds was based on our assessment that Italian growth was slowing and would continue to do so. For a country like Italy with a large debt stock and structurally low growth, cyclical downturns always lead to increased worries about debt sustainability. Coming at a time when the ECB is looking to begin the long process of exiting its hyper-easy policies, the growth and monetary backdrop was also becoming more challenging for Italian government bonds. The same thing can be said for the rest of the world. The rapid coordinated acceleration in global growth seen in 2017 has clearly peaked, as has the pace of central bank asset purchases that helped support that recovery through low bond yields (Chart of the Week). The growth convergence has turned into a divergence between growth in the still-strong U.S. and most other major economies. This poses a new threat to financial markets - a rising U.S. dollar - which, combined with some cooling of global growth, is already triggering underperformance of emerging market assets. So after the tumultuous market price action of the past few weeks, we think the most critical potential impact on the direction of bond yields, and our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, can be boiled down to two big questions. Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? NO. The U.S. economy continues to exhibit impressive resilience of late, even as the rest of the world has seen some softening in growth. The Payrolls report for May released last Friday showed another sturdy gain of 223,000 jobs, with upward revisions of 15,000 to the prior two months. This pushed the unemployment rate to 3.8% - the lowest level since April 2000 - while boosting the annual growth in Average Hourly Earnings up to 2.7% (Chart 2). The overall employment/population ratio also inched higher. Both wage growth and the employment/population ratio are well below the peaks seen in the past two business cycles, even with similarly low levels of unemployment. During those cycles, the Fed was forced to raise the funds rate to restrictive levels to cool growth to rein in overshooting inflation. The real fed funds rate was consistently above equilibrium measures like the Williams-Laubach "r-star" (bottom panel), which eventually crimped growth and led to a recession in both cases. In the current cycle, wage inflation is struggling to reach 3% and core PCE inflation at 1.8% has still not returned back to the Fed's 2% target. There is no need for the Fed to push harder on the brakes by raising rates faster than inflation is accelerating and pushing the real rate above r-star. If a growing economy continues to absorb labor market slack, however, the Fed could be chasing a higher level of r-star to prevent inflation from continuing to accelerate (bottom panel). Looking ahead, it does look like the Fed will continue to play a bit of catch-up to an accelerating U.S. economy. Leading economic indicators (both from the OECD and Conference Board), as well as our forward-looking models for employment and capital spending, all point to faster growth in the next couple of quarters (Chart 3). This will only support the case for the Fed to continue with its current rate "measured" pace of one rate hike per quarter over the next year. Chart 2Labor Market Tightening##BR##Leads To Fed Tightening Chart 3U.S. Growth Still##BR##In Good Shape With the U.S. dollar now reconnecting to the widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other major economies, there is a risk that the implied tightening of monetary conditions from a higher greenback could limit the need for the Fed to continue with its rate hike plans. Yet at the moment, the trade-weighted dollar is still not accelerating on a year-over-year basis, in contrast to the +15% appreciation seen during the 2014/15 dollar bull run (Chart 4). At the peak of that episode, net exports were a drag on real GDP growth of -1% and headline CPI inflation hit 0% (aided by collapsing oil prices). While an appreciation of that magnitude is unlikely, it would still take a much larger increase in the dollar to meaningfully dent growth in a way that could cause the Fed to pause on the rate hikes. A bigger dollar rally could also raise financial instability, primarily by hitting emerging markets where currency weakness versus the dollar would trigger tighter monetary policy and slower growth. That is certainly a risk for the Fed to consider. Yet given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy today, the Fed would only react to any turmoil in emerging markets if it meaningfully impacted U.S. financial markets, but not before then. While the Fed is still likely to continue on its rate hike path over the rest of 2018, the market has largely discounted that outcome - even after the late May decline in U.S. interest rates on the back of Italy-fueled risk-aversion (Chart 5). The market is still not completely priced to the Fed's interest rate projections over the next year, however, which does raise the potential for a return to the +3% level on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield that was seen before the Italy crisis flared up. However, our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, continue to point out the risks to a continued near-term period of declining (or at least, consolidating) Treasury yields given persistent short positioning in the Treasury market at a time of slowing data surprises (Chart 6). We remain bearish on Treasuries over a strategic horizon, however. Chart 4USD Rally Not Yet##BR##Enough To Impact The U.S. Chart 5Market Still Priced Close To##BR##The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Chart 6UST Yields Likely To##BR##Consolidate In The Near-Term Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? PROBABLY NOT. The latest volatility in European financial markets stemming from the Italy crisis came at a difficult time for the ECB. The central bank has been incrementally preparing the market for an eventual tapering of its asset purchase program after it expires in September. Yet the slowdown in euro area growth in the first quarter of the year, amid sluggish readings on inflation, has raised some doubt that the ECB would even be able to announce any sort of withdrawal of monetary stimulus. Chart 7Market Buying Into The ECB's##BR##'Low Rates For Longer' Message It is now a consensus expectation that the ECB will taper its net new asset purchases fully to zero by the end of 2018. What has moved, however, is the market's expectation for the timing of the first rate hike by the ECB. That has now been pushed out to April 2020 after the Italy turbulence (Chart 7). The ECB has been consistently signaling to the markets that it views the two decisions - tapering and rate hikes - as separate choices to make. In other words, tapering does not mean that rate hikes will come soon afterward. So far, the market appears to be listening to the ECB's signals by moving out the timing of any rate hike to nearly two full years from today. Given the magnitude of the slide in euro area growth seen in the first few months of 2018 (2nd panel), that may be taken as a sign that the market thinks the slump can continue. This also is consistent with the market believing the ECB's views on seeing through any impact on euro area inflation from changes in oil prices and the euro. The annual growth of the Brent oil price, in euro terms, has climbed to nearly 50% over the past few months (3rd panel). There has always been a strong correlation of that growth rate to overall headline euro area inflation, as evidenced by the early read on May CPI inflation released last week that came in at 1.9%. Yet core CPI inflation in the euro area is still only 1.1%, well below the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2%. Market-based inflation expectations are still below the level as well, with the 5-year euro CPI swap, 5-years forward now sitting at 1.7%. So the market pricing is consistent with an ECB that will be very slow to begin raising interest rates. That would also be consistent with the behavior of the ECB when it comes to its past tightening cycles. In Chart 8, we show diffusion indices at a country level for euro area industrial production growth (as a proxy for economic growth), headline inflation and core inflation. These show the percentage of all euro area countries that are seeing accelerating growth or inflation versus those countries seeing slowing growth and inflation. A higher diffusion index means that any acceleration in growth or inflation is broad-based, and vice versa. Chart 8ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns As can be seen in the chart, the ECB's past tightening cycles since the beginning of the euro in 1998 have all occurred when the diffusion indices for inflation have risen into the 60-80% zone. In other words, the ECB is more aggressive on lifting rates when a large majority of countries in the euro zone is seeing accelerating inflation. During those same tightening cycles, however, the diffusion indices for growth have been decelerating, suggesting less broad-based economic strength. The implication from this analysis is that the ECB cares more about inflation than growth when making its monetary policy decisions. The ECB's reputation for sometimes making overly hawkish policy mistakes, like in 2010-11, is well deserved. Looking ahead, the current readings on the diffusion indices for both growth and, more importantly, inflation are all quite depressed. This suggest that the slowing growth seen in the overall euro area data so far in 2018 has been broad-based, while the increase in the overall euro area inflation data has not been broad-based. This can be seen when looking at the some of the individual country data for the major core euro area countries (Chart 9) and Peripheral countries (Chart 10). For example, Netherlands and Portugal stand out as having inflation trends that are much weaker than the other countries. Yet the more divergent trends in euro area inflation does not mean that the ECB will decide to defer any decision to taper, however. The ECB will have to make that decision at either the June or July meetings, with the current program set to end in September. Absent a significant drop in euro area inflation, the ECB is still likely to signal a full taper by the end of the year. Yet even if they did extend the current program into 2019, at the same pace of 30 billion euros per month, this would likely not have a meaningful impact on the level of euro area bond yields. We have found that is the growth rate of those purchases, and not the absolute level, that is most correlated to the level of euro area bond yields (Chart 11). Even if the current program were to be extended to March 2019, to be followed by a tapering of net purchases to zero by September 2019, then the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet (driven by the asset purchases) would remain mired below 10% - a far slower pace compared to the peak years of ECB bond buying. Chart 9Growth Convergence,##BR##Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Chart 10And In##BR##Peripheral Europe Chart 11Extending ECB Bond Purchases##BR##Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact In other words, an extension of the asset purchases would not drive euro area bond yields any lower, and would entail operational constraints on country sizes, etc. The ECB will have better success at driving down yields by keeping policy rates lower for longer, as it is signaling it will do. Bottom Line: The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Recommended Allocation A Series Of Unfortunate Events Markets have taken a series of hits in recent months - sharp drops in emerging market currencies, a political crisis in Italy, and the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China - not to mention a slowdown in cyclical growth. But risk assets have been remarkably resilient: the U.S. stock market is in the middle of its year-to-date range, and U.S. small cap stocks (more attuned to domestic conditions) are at record highs (Chart 1). The uncertainty is set to continue for a while. But, with global growth likely to settle at an above-trend pace, fiscal and monetary policy still accommodative, and earnings continuing to grow strongly, the recent resilience says to us that risk assets are likely to grind higher and to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. A major underlying cause of the recent volatility has been the growing disparity between growth in the U.S. and in the rest of the world (Chart 2). This is partly due to the strength of the euro and yen last year, which is now dampening activity in these regions, but the slowdown in Chinese industrial growth and a higher oil price may also be having a disproportionate effect on growth outside the U.S. This growth disparity has widened interest rate differentials, which have again become the major driver of currencies, pushing up the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Chart 1Small Cap Stocks At A Record High Chart 2Disparity Between The U.S. And The Rest... Chart 3...Means Dollar Has Further To Rise In combination with rising U.S. interest rates (the 10-year Treasury yield rose above 3% last month, before correcting a little), dollar appreciation is a threat for emerging markets. EM assets have long shown a consistently strong inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 4). We expect the EM sell-off to continue. Further Fed hikes and rising inflation expectations in the U.S. (relative to the euro area and Japan) will increase interest-rate differentials and push the dollar up further: we forecast 1.12 for euro/dollar. Investors are still far from capitulating on EM assets after several years of large purchases (Chart 5). Many EM central banks are being forced to raise rates to defend their currencies, which will dent growth. Some may even be forced into reintroducing capital controls. Several emerging economies besides Argentina and Turkey remain vulnerable, having worryingly high amounts of foreign currency debt (Chart 6). Chart 4Strong Dollar Is Bad For Em Assets Chart 5Em Is Still A Consensus Favorite Chart 6Worrying Levels Of FX Debt Chart 7Not Surprising That Italians Are Fed Up Geopolitics is likely to remain a drag on markets for a while, too. Italy remains the biggest threat. The discontent of the Italian population is unsurprising given the country's stagnation since it joined the euro (Chart 7). The probable coalition government of the Lega and Five Star Movement would introduce aggressive fiscal stimulus, putting it in confrontation with the EU's budgetary rules. But BCA's geopolitical strategists see little risk of Italy exiting the euro in the next two years (though 10 years might be a different story).1 Political gyrations may continue for some months, particularly if the new government persists with its plan to blow the fiscal deficit out to 7% of GDP, but the sell-off in short-term Italian bonds looks to be overdone. Developments in trade tariffs, Iran and North Korea could also weigh on markets in coming months. But ultimately economic fundamentals almost always outweigh geopolitical risk. Global growth is slowing, but to an above-trend pace. Fiscal policy is particularly stimulative this year, with 17 of the 33 OECD countries undertaking large fiscal easing, and a further 11 some easing. The overall cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance in OECD countries is forecast to ease by 0.5% of GDP this year and 0.4% next (Chart 8). Monetary policy remains accommodative almost everywhere. The FOMC, in its May statement, by adding the word "symmetric" to describe its 2% inflation objective, was clearly emphasizing that it sees no need to accelerate the pace of rate hikes, despite the recent pickup in core PCE inflation. We expect the Fed to continue to raise rates once a quarter, meaning that monetary policy will not become restrictive until around Q1 next year. With inflation expectations not yet fully normalized (Chart 9), the Fed could still exercise its "put option" by holding for a quarter or two if global risk were to rise significantly. Italy's problems also make it more likely that the ECB will stay easier for longer, and the probability is rising of its deciding to extend asset purchases into next year. Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus (Almost) Everywhere Chart 9Inflation Expectations Have Further To Rise With the consensus already forecasting global GDP to grow 3.4% this year, and U.S. earnings by 22%, there is no obvious catalyst for risk assets to rebound sharply (Chart 10). However, we find it inconceivable that equity markets will not be higher in 12 months' time - and will not have outperformed bonds over that time - if the macro environment plays out as we expect. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on equities and underweight on fixed income, but might start to turn more defensive around the end of the year if the signs are in place that the recession we expect in 2020 is still on the cards. Equities: For the reasons described above, we remain cautious on EM equities. Within EM, our preference would be for markets such as China, Korea and India, which are likely to be less affected by investors' concerns about current account deficits and foreign-currency denominated debt. In DM, our preference remains for late-cyclical sectors, especially energy, financials and industrials. We mainly view regional and country selection as a derivative of the sector call: this supports our preference for euro zone and Japanese stocks over those in the U.S. and U.K. Fixed Income: A combination of quarterly Fed rate hikes, a further normalization of inflation expectations, and moderate rises in the real rate and term premium are likely to push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield up to 3.5% by year-end (Chart 11). We, therefore, remain underweight duration and prefer TIPs to nominal bonds. We keep our overweights on spread product within the fixed-income bucket, since it should continue to outperform for another couple of quarters. U.S. high-yield spreads are likely to remain steady, giving an attractive carry even after accounting for defaults; investment grade spreads might start to recover, given that the sell-off of quality bonds by companies repatriating short-term investments held offshore ($35 Bn from the 20 largest U.S. companies in Q1) is now mostly over (Chart 12). Chart 10Can Growth Beat These Expectations? Chart 11Treasury Yield To Rise To 3.5% Chart 12Selective Spread Product Remains Attractive Currencies: Interest-rate differentials, as described above, are likely to push the dollar up further, especially against the euro. This should continue until the effect of a strong dollar/weak euro starts to rebalance growth surprises back to the euro area, perhaps around the end of the year. We see less chance of dollar appreciation against the yen (which is still undervalued against its PPP value of 98, and may benefit from its safe-haven status) and against the Canadian dollar (given the Bank of Canada's hawkish stance). Commodities: Industrial commodities are likely to continue to struggle against headwinds from the appreciating dollar, and the continuing moderate slowdown in China (Chart 13). The oil price has become a tougher call recently, with talk that OPEC may agree later this month to bring back as much as 1 million barrels/day in production, but Venezuelan and Iranian supply likely to exit the market. BCA's energy strategists now forecast WTI and Brent to average $70 and $78 in 2H18, and $67/$72 in 2019, but expect higher volatility in the price over coming months (Chart 14).2 Chart 13Continuing Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 14Forecasting Oil Is Getting Harder Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!," dated 30 May 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output: Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," dated 31 May 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients next week. Instead of our Weekly Report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Matt Gertken and Ray Park. The report addresses the North Korean situation and argues that a positive, if not perfect, diplomatic solution will result from U.S.-North Korean negotiations. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The U.S. can withstand further rate hikes. Neither economic nor financial imbalances are especially elevated, while fiscal stimulus will offset much of the sting from tighter monetary policy. Unfortunately, America's resilience to higher rates does not extend to the rest of the world. A stronger dollar is undermining emerging markets, which are already under pressure from slower Chinese growth and the looming prospect of trade wars. The crisis in Italy will further restrain the ECB from withdrawing monetary support. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors could consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield has reached 4%. EUR/USD came within a whisker of our 1.15 target this week. We will book profits on our long DXY trade recommendation if the dollar index reaches 96. A defensive posture is appropriate for now, but risk assets should recover later this year as the global economy finds its footing. This could set the scene for a blow-off rally in stocks. Feature Gauging The Pain Threshold From Higher Rates Chart 1Market Expectations Slightly Below Fed Dots After the recent turbulence, the market is pricing in 100 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Such a pace of rate hikes would be quite slow by historic standards. In past tightening cycles, the Fed would typically raise rates by about 50 basis points per quarter. Investors expect the real fed funds rate to peak at around 1%, well below the historic average of 3%-to-5%. Underlying these expectations is the presumption that the neutral rate of interest - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - is quite low, and that the Fed will not have to raise rates much above neutral to cool the economy. According to the April FOMC minutes, "a few" participants thought that the fed funds rate was already close to its equilibrium level. There are many reasons to think that R-star has fallen over time, but in practice, the margin of error around estimates of the neutral rate is huge. Thus, rather than getting bogged down over technical issues, investors would be well served by taking a more practical approach and asking what they should be on the lookout for to determine whether interest rates have moved into restrictive territory. The State Of The U.S. Housing Market Housing has historically been the most important interest rate-sensitive sector, so much so that Ed Leamer entitled his 2007 Jackson Hole symposium paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle."1 Given the recent runup in mortgage yields, it is not too surprising that the latest data on U.S. housing has been on the weak side (Chart 2). Mortgage applications for purchase have come off their highs. Housing starts, building permits, and new and existing home sales all declined in April. Homebuilder sentiment improved a tad, but this was due to an increase in the current sales component; future sales expectations were flat on the month. The share of respondents who indicated that now was a good time to buy a home in the latest University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey declined to 69% in May, continuing its slide from a peak of 83% in December 2014. Still, we would not fret too much about the state of the U.S. housing market (Chart 3). Construction activity has been slow to increase this cycle, which has pushed vacancies to ultra-low levels. Home prices have been rising briskly, but are still 13% below their 2006 peak once adjusted for inflation. On both a price-to-rent and price-to-income basis, home prices do not appear overly stretched. Mortgage servicing costs, expressed as a share of disposable income, are near all-time lows. The homeownership rate has also been trending higher, thanks to faster household formation and an improving labor market. Chart 2U.S. Housing: Higher Mortgage##br## Rates Are A Headwind... Chart 3...But Don't##br## Fret Yet Household Debt Is Not Yet At Worrying Levels Lenders also remain circumspect (Chart 4). Mortgage debt has barely grown as a share of disposable income throughout the recovery, and is still 31 percentage points below 2007 levels. The average FICO score for new mortgages stands at a healthy 761, well above pre-recession standards. The Urban Institute Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is nowhere close to dangerous levels. This is particularly the case for private-label mortgages, whose default risk has hovered at just over 2% during the past few years, down from a peak of 22% in 2006. A dwindling share of loan originations since the financial crisis has involved adjustable rate mortgages (Chart 5). This has made the housing market more resilient to Fed rate hikes. Other parts of the household credit arena look more menacing, but not so much that they threaten to short-circuit the economy. Banks have been tightening lending standards on auto loans since Q2 of 2016 and credit card loans since the second quarter of last year. This should help moderate the increase in default rates that has been observed in those categories (Chart 6). Chart 4Mortgage Debt Is Not ##br##A Cause For Concern Chart 5Housing Market: More Resilient To ##br##Rate Hikes Than It Used To Be Chart 6Lenders Are More ##br##Circumspect These Days Student debt has continued to trend higher, but the vast majority of these loans is backstopped by the government. While the Treasury's own finances are on an unsustainable trajectory, this is more of a long-term concern than a short-term problem. If anything, fiscal stimulus over the next two years will allow the Fed to raise rates more than it could otherwise without endangering the economy. Corporate Borrowing: High But Not Extreme Like a river, market liquidity tends to flow along the path of least resistance, rather than towards those who happen to be the most thirsty. While the household sector was piling on debt during the 2001-2007 boom, the U.S. corporate sector was still recovering from the hangover produced by the capex boom in the late 1990s. A decade later, corporate balance sheets were in good shape. Spurred on by ultra-low interest rates, corporate debt levels began to rise. Today, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP is near a record high. Valuations for corporate assets have reached lofty levels. In inflation-adjusted terms, commercial real estate prices are 4% above their pre-recession peak (Chart 7). U.S. equities also trade at a historically elevated multiple to earnings, sales, and book value (Chart 8). There are bright spots, however (Chart 9). Thanks to lofty corporate profits, the ratio of corporate debt-to-EBITDA is in the middle of its post-1990 range based on national accounts data. Interest payments-to-EBIT are near historic lows. Corporate bonds now represent 60% of total corporate liabilities. Bonds tend to have much longer maturities than bank loans, which provides a buffer against default risk. Although the picture is not as benign if one performs a bottom-up analysis of publicly-listed companies, the overall message is that the U.S. corporate sector can handle higher rates. Corporate stresses will eventually rise, but it will likely take a recession for this to happen, which we don't expect until 2020. Chart 7Commercial Real Estate Prices: ##br##Above Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8U.S. Equities##br## Are Overvalued Chart 9Corporate Debt Is High,##br## But So Are Profits Cyclical Spending Still Subdued The discussion above suggests that U.S. interest rate-sensitive sectors can withstand further rate hikes. This conclusion is buttressed by the observation that the cyclical sectors of the economy - the ones that tend to weaken the most during recessions - have yet to reach levels that make them vulnerable to a sharp retrenchment. Chart 10 shows that the sum of business capital spending, residential and commercial construction, and consumer discretionary goods purchases is still well below levels that have preceded past recessions. Along the same lines, the private sector financial balance - the difference between what the private sector earns and what it spends - is currently in surplus to the tune of 2.2% of GDP. This compares to deficits of 5.4% of GDP in 2000 and 3.8% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 11). Further monetary tightening, to the extent that it prevents any brewing imbalances in the real economy and financial markets from worsening, may be just what the doctor ordered. Chart 10Cyclical Spending Still Below Levels##br## Preceding Past Recessions Chart 11U.S. Private Sector Financial##br## Balance Is Healthy The Sneeze Felt Around The World The U.S. is not an island unto itself. Even if a bit outdated, the old adage which says that when the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold, still rings true. As such, focusing on the neutral rate only as it pertains to the U.S. is a bit too parochial. There may be a lower "shadow" neutral rate which, if breached, causes pain outside the U.S. before it causes pain in the U.S. itself. Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance (Chart 12). As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years (Chart 13). Most emerging markets entered 2018 with strong growth momentum. Recent tracking estimates point to some deceleration in GDP growth, but nothing too alarming (Chart 14). That could begin to change. EM financial conditions have started to tighten, which is likely to weigh on activity. BCA's Emerging Market and Geopolitical Strategy teams have flagged the prospect of policy-inducing tightening in China. Trade tensions also seem to be escalating again following President Trump's decision this week to curb Chinese investment in the U.S., impose a 25% tariff on $50 billion of Chinese imports, and slap tariffs on foreign steel. All this could put an additional dent in global growth. While this publication does not expect a full-blown EM crisis, a period of EM underperformance over the next few months is likely. Chart 12EM Borrowers Like Local Credit, ##br##But Don't Dislike Foreign-Currency Debt Chart 13EM Dollar##br## Debt Is High Chart 14EM Growth Decelerating,##br## But Not Dramatically... Yet Italy: If You Are Gonna Do The Time, You Might As Well Do The Crime Even if emerging markets avoid another major crisis, one can always count on Europe to try to fill the void. The Italian 10-year bond yield is up over 100 basis points since the middle of April. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of one, a standard Taylor Rule equation says that Italy would need 2% of GDP in fiscal stimulus per year to offset the tightening in financial conditions brought upon by the recent increase in borrowing costs.2 That is 20% of GDP in stimulus over the next decade to pay for a fiscal package that has yet to be implemented by a government that does not yet (and may never) exist. At this point, investors are basically punishing Italy for a crime – defaulting and possibly jettisoning the euro – it has yet to commit. If you are going to get reprimanded for something you have not done, you have more incentive to do it. The market realizes this, which is why it is locked in a vicious circle where rising yields make default more likely, leading to even higher yields (Chart 15). The fact that GDP per capita in Italy is no higher now than when the country adopted the euro in 1999, and Italian public support for euro area membership is lower than elsewhere, has only added fuel to investor concerns (Chart 16). Chart 15When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible Chart 16Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy As we go to press, rumours are swirling that the Five Star Movement and Lega may be able to form a government after agreeing to appoint a less euroskeptic finance minister than the one the Italian President previously rejected. Regardless of whether this happens, investors are likely to remain on edge. Support for Lega has risen by seven percent since voters went to the polls in March. Populism is here to stay. All this suggests that the brewing crisis in Italy will not blow over easily. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors should consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield reaches 4%. At that point, the risk-reward trade-off from owning Italian debt would be too good to ignore. Until the Italian bond market reaches a capitulation point, the euro will remain under pressure. The Italian sovereign debt market is the biggest in Europe and the fourth largest in the world after the U.S., Japan, and China. If foreign investors continue to shun Italian debt, that will reduce capital inflows into the euro area. This means less demand for the common currency. Investment Conclusions The softening of global growth this year, along with tensions in emerging markets and Italy, have lit a fire under the dollar. Our long DXY trade is up 10.7% inclusive of carry. We continue to think that the path of least resistance for the dollar is up, but we will be looking to book gains on our trade recommendation once the dollar index reaches 96. That's roughly 2% above current levels. Slower global growth is bad news for cyclical equities. European and Japanese equities have a greater tilt towards cyclical sectors, so it is likely that their stock markets will underperform the U.S. over the next few months. This is particularly the case for Europe, where banks have come under pressure due to slower domestic growth, rising bond yields in Italy and Spain, and heightened exposure to emerging markets. For now, our MacroQuant model, which is designed to capture short-term movements in the stock market, is recommending a somewhat below-benchmark allocation to equities. Looking further out, our 12-month cyclical view on stocks remains modestly constructive, reflecting our expectation that the next major recession in developed markets is still two years away. Keep in mind that even the EM crisis in the 1990s did not plunge the U.S. into recession. On the contrary, the crisis restrained the Fed from raising rates too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity led to a massive blow-off rally in equities, which took the S&P 500 up 68% between October 1998 and March 2000. European stocks did even better during that period, outperforming their U.S. peers by 40% in local-currency terms. We may be heading for a similar sequence of events. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 2 The original Taylor Rule introduced by John Taylor in 1992 assigns a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap. Thus, a one hundred basis-point rise in interest rates would be necessary to offset a 2% of GDP increase in output. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads.