Monetary

Highlights Market participants should be asking why yields are higher, and not worry about how much they have climbed. While the bond market has begun to price in higher inflation (via the move in the TIPS breakeven rate), wage and price inflation remains muted for now. Sentiment has deteriorated more than valuations or technicals as the S&P 500 climbed to fresh all-time highs in December and January. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service downgraded small caps to neutral from overweight. Feature Chart 1The January Jobs Report Keeps The Fed##BR##On Track For Gradual Hikes This Year Last week marked Janet Yellen's final FOMC meeting and the first week in many years that the U.S. Treasury and equity markets worried about inflation. The strongest year-over-year reading in average hourly earnings in 9 years (+2.9% in January) added to the market's inflation concerns (Chart 1). The 10-year Treasury yield climbed 15 bps to 2.84%, while the S&P 500 moved lower by 2.5% as of midday on Friday, February 2. It was the worst week for the stock market since September 2016. Individual investor sentiment on the equity market has surged recently, and valuations are at extremes. However, BCA's technical indicator for U.S. stocks is not at an extreme. BCA's stance is that while the risk/reward for stocks over bonds has narrowed, it is too soon to call an end to the bull market. However, we are monitoring real yields closely. At 2.13% on Friday morning, February 2, the 10-year TIPS breakeven yield was still below the 2.4 to 2.5% range where markets should begin to worry about the Fed falling behind the curve. While the acceleration in average hourly earnings in January cements the case for continued gradual Fed rate hikes this year, inflation is not about to spiral higher. Wage inflation remains muted, and patience is still required as market participants await signs of a pickup in broader measures of consumer price inflation. The market is now fully priced for three rate hikes this year. Also, longer-term rate expectations have moved close to the Fed's estimate of the terminal rate. It would be reasonable to expect some short-term pause to recent near-relentless uptrend in rate expectations. For the market to price tightening beyond the Fed's dots, the economy and inflation would need to outperform the Fed's forecasts (which are 2.5% GDP growth, 1.9% core inflation and 3.9% unemployment for 2018). For now at least, it's not clear that is the case. Why Rates Are Rising Matters The relentless increase in 10-year Treasury yields spooked investors early last week, but it is too soon for equity investors to worry about an overly aggressive Fed. At 2.84%, the 10-year Treasury yield is above the FOMC's view of the neutral Fed funds rate, and has moved nearly 80 bps higher since early September. Market participants should be asking why yields are higher, and not worry about how much they have climbed. Chart 2Breaking Down The Rise In Yields BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service noted in mid-January1 that in the current environment, it is useful to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield (Chart 2). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has moved from 1.66% last June to 2.13% late last week, but is still too low. Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4 and 2.5% when inflation is well-anchored near the Fed's 2% target. BCA's stance is that inflation will move back to the Fed's target soon. The implication is that there is still another 25 to 35 bps of upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. The reason why this threshold is important is because a rise in inflation expectations to that level would be a signal that the FOMC will need to become more aggressive in slowing economic growth. This could occur even if actual inflation is below the 2% target, as long as it is rising toward the target. This will be especially true if the unemployment rate is heading to 3.5%, as we suspect. BCA's U.S. Bond strategists' model of real yields2 projects that real yields will rise 4 bps by the end of the year to 0.61%, but it could be more depending on how quickly the Fed wants to slow growth. Bottom Line: BCA expects that the nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.0 and 3.25% by the time inflation reaches the Fed's target. BCA's stance is that risk assets will get into trouble once inflation expectations rise above 2.4%. Bond yields will presumably be moving higher along with inflation expectations. However, investors should not ignore higher Treasury yields rates. That said, equity investors do not need to be too concerned until inflation expectations hit that 2.4% threshold. Inflation itself may not be at 2% as this occurs, but if inflation is climbing and the unemployment rate is still falling, then the market will believe that the Fed is behind the curve. That is a bearish environment for equities. Inflation: Still A Waiting Game While the bond market has begun to price in higher inflation (via the move in the TIPS breakeven rate), wage and price inflation remains muted for now. Chart 3 illustrates various measures of wage inflation. Panel 1 shows that the Employment Cost Index (ECI) is in a clear uptrend. The acceleration in the wages and salaries component of ECI is broad-based across geography and industry (Chart 4, panel 1). Moreover, at 86%, the percentage of states reporting unemployment rates below NAIRU suggests that wage gains are imminent (Chart 4, panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Most Wage Metrics Are Rolling Over Chart 4The Employment Cost Index Is In A Definitive Uptrend... Although the year-over-year increase in average hourly earnings accelerated to 2.9% in January, many other wage indicators have stalled out recently (Chart 3, panel 4). The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker rolled over recently along with weekly usual earnings (Chart 3, panels 2 and 3). In short, despite a robust global economy, a U.S. economy running above its long term potential and the unemployment rate (4.1% in January) below NAIRU (4.6%), labor shortages are not yet strong enough to push up wage inflation. Chart 5Shift Towards Service Economy Led##BR##To Shift Away From Capacity Utilization That said, the historical evidence suggests that once the labor market tightens, inflation eventually does accelerate. However, wages do not always lead inflation at bottoms and may be a lagging indicator in this cycle.3 In long economic cycles (1980s and 1990s), wage inflation was a lagging indicator. BCA recommends that investors should monitor a broad range of inflation indicators. Most of these indicators show that inflation pressures are building, but only gradually. The low readings on manufacturing capacity utilization suggest low odds of a rapid acceleration in inflation. Furthermore, the shift in composition of the U.S. economy in the past three decades suggests that the metric is no longer an accurate measure of wage or price bottlenecks in the economy (Chart 5, panels 1 and 2). Manufacturing capacity utilization hit a post WWII low in mid-2009 at 63.5%, before recovering to a well below average 75%-76% range for the past half-decade. In December 2017, utilization hit a 9-year high at 77%. Chart 5, (panels 3 and 4) shows that prior to 1980, inflation accelerated and the output gap closed as utilization breached 80%. Since early 1990s, the relationship is not as clear. Is 5% The Magic Number On Rates? History suggests that rising rates are not an impediment to higher stock prices, as long as rates remain below 5%. Chart 6 is a reminder that the 10-year yield and stock prices climbed together in the 1950s. The rise in yields in the 50s primarily reflected better economic growth rather than fears of inflation. Nonetheless, investors are concerned that a rise in yields will flip the positive correlation between bond yields and stock prices. Table 1 shows that since 1980, long treasury yields and stock prices move in the same direction until the 10-year moves above 5%. Chart 7 shows the relationship between the level of nominal bond yields and stock to bond yield correlations back to 1874. Moreover, since 1980, a move from 2 to 3% on the 10-year is accompanied by an average gain for the S&P 500 of 1.2%, with a median move of 1.8%. On average, the S&P 500 posts a modest decline (24 bps) as the 10-year Treasury elevates from 3 to 4%, but the median return (98 bps) is still positive. Our July 2016 Special Report provides an in-depth discussion of the impact of rates and inflation on equity prices. Historically, even the move from 4 to 5% on the 10-year is not an impediment to higher stock prices.4 Moreover, in a 2016 report our Global ETF Strategy service provides a detailed overview of equity returns in various phases of the Fed cycle.5 Chart 6Stock Can Rise##BR##With Bond Yields Table 13-Year Correlation* Between Stock Prices##BR##And Bond Yield Level (1980-2018) BCA's stance is that the stock-to-bond ratio will climb this year. However, the risk/reward embedded in that stance has shifted given the move in both bond yields and stock prices in the past few months. Our U.S. bond strategists peg fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 3.0%, just 18 bps above the yield last Friday morning. Chart 8 illustrates this point across three time horizons given our view of fair value on the 10-year Treasury yield (3.0%). Our analysis assumes a 1.75% annualized dividend yield on the S&P 500. Panel 1 illustrates that the ratio between now and mid-year will remain positive if stocks are flat. The same holds true though September 2018 and year end. Just a 5% drop in the S&P 500 by year-end 2018 signals a localized peak in the stock-to-bond ratio. Declines of 10 or 20% indicate a reversal of the uptrend in stocks versus bonds that has been in place since early 2016. Chart 7Stock To Bond Correlations Remain Positive With Nominal Yields Below 4.25% Chart 8Scenarios For Stock-To-Bond Ratio Bottom Line: BCA's view is that Treasury yields will top out at around 3 to 3.25% in this cycle, as inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. Our base case is that stocks will do well in 2018, and will not be subject to concerns over an aggressive Fed until 2019. However, investors should closely monitor the 10-year TIPs spread, as noted above. We do not expect to breech 2.4% this year, but the timing is unclear. Moreover, we may take profits on our overweight stance well before the market senses the Fed is behind the curve, earlier than that, especially given stretched valuation and stretched market sentiment. Seismic Sentiment Shift Rising rates are not the only concern for U.S. equities. In late November, we noted6 that our technical and sentiment indicators are not flashing red as in previous bear markets, but neither are they giving an all-clear for U.S. equity investors. Sentiment levels are a bigger concern than technical indicators, and investors should monitor both for signs of an equity sell-off. These indicators have become even more stretched since we highlighted them in November and more clearly since the most recent equity market lull in late August 2017. BCA's technical indicator deteriorated since our late November report, but remains below levels that, in the past, have preceded bear markets (Chart 9, panel 1). The S&P 500 is testing the top end of the recovery trend channel in place since 2009 (Panel 2). A break above that level suggests more upside to stocks. However, a definitive failure to breakout may signal a period of consolidation for equities. BCA's equity valuation metric pushed further into extreme overvalued territory. Stretched valuations say more about medium- and long-term returns than near-term performance.7 However, the shift in the equity sentiment indicators we track is notable. BCA's investor sentiment composite index is at an all-time high (Chart 10, panel 1). Moreover, the surge in sentiment is led by individual investors and advisors who serve them (panels 2 and 4). Traders are a bit more complacent. Furthermore, individuals' optimism toward stocks is at an all-time high in surveys conducted by the Conference Board and the University of Michigan (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). Chart 9Technical Picture For##BR##Equities Still Looks OK Chart 10Investor Sentiment##BR##Is Flashing Red Chart 11Surge In Consumer Optimism##BR##Toward Year Ahead Returns For Equities A similar survey from Yale University suggests that consumers' expectations about future equity market returns remains subdued. However, this may be due to the fact that the Yale survey is only available to December, and thus misses the equity 'melt up' in January that followed the news of the U.S. tax cuts. The other surveys mentioned are up to January. Notably, the Yale panel includes wealthy individual investors and a sample of institutions. The respondents in the Michigan and Conference Board surveys are more representative of the average U.S. household. Despite elevated attitudes toward equities, readings from the Fed's Flow of Funds on household ownership of stocks suggest that individuals may still have room in their portfolios for equities. Chart 12 shows that as of Q3 2017, equity holdings as a share of total household financial assets remains below prior peaks. As the U.S. stock market soared in the late 1990s, equities accounted for 31% of assets at the peak. Just before the global financial crisis, the figure was 23%. Today, equities account for just 25% of households' financial portfolios. The bottom panel of Chart 12 illustrates that individuals have allocated away from debt securities in the past half-decade. Chart 12Household Holdings Of Equities Still Below Prior Peaks Bottom Line: Sentiment has deteriorated more than valuations or technicals as the S&P 500 climbed to fresh all-time highs in December and January. While we are sticking with our stance that stocks will beat bonds in 2018, we are concerned about small caps. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service notes8 that rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, coupled with increasing relative indebtedness and lack of relative profit growth, signal that the time is right to shift from overweight to neutral on U.S. small caps. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Long And Short Of It", published January 23, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Ill Placed Trust?", published December 19, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst "Monthly Report", published September 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stock-To-Bond Correlation: When Will Good News Be Bad News?", published July 6, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global ETF Strategy Special Report "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", published December 21, 2016. Available at getf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Technically Speaking", published November 27, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Global Asset Allocation Special Report "What Returns Can You Expect?", published November 15, 2017. Available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Too Good To Be True?", published January 22 , 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Even though our baseline scenario calls for four rate hikes out of the Fed this year - more than markets have priced in - gold will be supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks, and greater volatility in equity markets. Further out, we expect gold will provide a good hedge against a likely equity downturn, as the bull market turns into a bear market in 2H19. For now, keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Energy: Overweight. After popping above $70 and $66/bbl last week, Brent and WTI prices retreated ~ $2.00/bbl on the back of a stronger USD and increased rig counts in the U.S. shales, particularly in the prolific Permian Basin, where 18 rigs were added. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to average $67 and $63/bbl this year. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper continues to trade on either side of $3.20/lb on the COMEX. We remain neutral, given our view upside risk - chiefly supply-side disruptions at the mine and refined levels - will be balanced on the downside by a stronger USD and a slowdown in China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will draw support from rising inflation and inflation expectations this year and next (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. NAFTA negotiations ended this week in Montreal with the U.S. rejecting proposals from Canada to advance the talks. However, the U.S. side stated it would seek "major breakthroughs" at the next round of negotiations in Mexico City beginning February 26, according to agriculture.com. Feature Gold Price Risks Skewed To The Upside Price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here. Higher inflation and inflation expectations, which normally would be bullish for gold, will be countered by Fed policy-rate hikes, which will boost the USD and lift real rates in our base case (Chart of the Week). Inflation's Revival Would Support Gold ... Despite above-trend global growth last year, subdued inflation limited the Fed's willingness to proceed with interest rate normalization in earnest. However, we do not put this down to structural forces, and instead expect core inflation to be near its bottom.1 In fact, inflation's soft readings are typical of the expected 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and a pick-up in inflation, and as our Global Investment Strategists point out, several key indicators including the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, as well as BCA's proprietary pipeline inflation index are already moving in this direction (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables Matter Chart 2Signs Of Life In U.S. Inflation Inflation tends to pick up once the unemployment rate falls below the 5% mark. With the latest unemployment reading coming in at 4.1%, the U.S. economy has reached the steep end of the Phillips Curve - a workhorse model used by the Fed, which depicts the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Indeed, BCA's Global Investment Strategists expect the U.S. unemployment rate to continue falling to a 49-year low of 3.5% by year-end. These further declines in the unemployment rate will push up wages, pressuring service inflation (Chart 3). At the same time, we expect the lagged impact of the weak USD will begin to show up in goods price inflation, along with higher energy prices. While some components of the Fed's preferred inflation gauge may face a slowdown in price pressure - most notably rent - this will likely be mitigated by accelerating prices in other components, such as health care, which we expect will return to its historic trend. In fact, U.S. inflation expectations - supported by higher energy prices and a strong December core CPI reading - have already started to increase (Chart 4). As our U.S. Bond Strategists point out, by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's target, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will be between 2.4% and 2.5%.3 Chart 3At The Steep End Of The Philips Curve Chart 4A Breakout In Inflation Expectations Thus the 2018 inflation outlook is showing signs that it is in the process of bottoming, and will soon begin its ascent. We expect core PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred gauge, to reach the central bank's 2% target by year-end. This pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations is positive for gold, which we've shown to be an attractive hedge against rising prices. However, inflation's comeback will likely embolden the Fed to proceed more aggressively with its hiking cycle. ... But A Hawkish Fed Counters Inflation ... While our modelling showcases an inverse relationship between real rates and gold prices, what is crucial to our outlook is our expectation of how the Fed will proceed with its interest rate normalization process this year. Given that gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, the ideal condition for gold would be for the Fed to stay behind the inflation curve. But we are not expecting that just yet.4 Rather than waiting to see the "whites of inflation's eyes," our expectation is the Fed will tighten ahead of inflation. This has in fact already materialized with three hikes in 2017 amid muted inflation. Upward surprises in U.S. growth, coupled with an upward trend in inflation will keep the Fed on its normalization path with greater confidence. We expect four rate hikes in 2018 - above both market expectations and what is implied by the "dot plot". Net, the pre-emptive Fed rate hikes we expect will lead to higher real rates, and will limit gold's upside this year. ... As Does A Stronger Greenback An increase in U.S. real rates vis-à-vis other economies, as well as a shift in the composition of global growth to favor the U.S., will support the USD. In addition to higher real rates, this would also limit gold's upside in 2018. Stronger growth ex-U.S. last year weakened the USD. This year, we expect the U.S. economy to outperform. Financial conditions have eased in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world, while fiscal policy is expected to be comparatively more favorable in the U.S. The U.S. surprise index has reflected this shift in comparative growth, outperforming most regions (Chart 5).5 While the Euro has been exceptionally resilient, the fallout from a stronger currency will eventually begin to show up in slower growth. The EUR/USD cross has diverged from the spread in expected policy rates, leaving the euro looking expensive (Chart 6). Since the beginning of the year, spreads have widened in favor of the dollar, while the USD has weakened. Although we do not expect the ECB to hike until mid-2019, our expectation of four Fed rate hikes this year will support the greenback. This will push spreads back in line. Such decoupling is not the norm, and we expect a 5% appreciation in the dollar in broad trade weighted terms.6 Chart 5Economic Surprises Favor The U.S. Chart 6EUR Looks Expensive Still, The Fed Could Surprise, And Tilt Dovish Chart 7A Policy Change Would##BR##Tolerate Higher Inflation A risk to our base case outlook is a change in the Fed's monetary policy framework. Here we note an increasing number of statements advocating the exploration of an alternative policy framework have been emerging from the Fed. This line of attack observes the Fed's current 2% inflation target is unsatisfactory, as it is too close to the zero-lower bound on interest rates, thus constraining the Fed's ability to exercise expansionary monetary policy when rates are low.7 Alternative policy proposals include price-level targeting, as well as an increase in the inflation target. Additionally, former Fed Chair Bernanke recently proposed a temporary price level target be implemented during low-rate periods.8 The net effect of these alternatives would be a higher inflation rate - above the current 2% target (Chart 7). If the Fed were to adopt a new monetary policy framework, it will likely occur before the next recession - in order to allow it to better respond to economic weakness. While we do not expect a regime change this year, these discussions and an eventual shift, may make the Fed more dovish this year, and more likely to tolerate higher inflation in the future. This would be an upside risk to gold, as it would assume its role as a store-of-value against higher inflation. The net effect of such a policy change - were it to occur - would be higher inflation expectations, lower real rates, and a weaker USD, all of which would bid up the gold market. Bottom Line: The revival of U.S. inflation and inflation expectations will bolster gold. However, our expectation that the Fed will continue hiking ahead of a realized uptick in inflation, and more aggressively than is currently priced in the market, will increase real rates and limit gold's upside potential. A stronger USD on the back of higher real rates, as well as a shift in global growth in favor of the U.S., will work against gold this year. Geopolitical Risks: Understated In 2018 We expect geopolitical risks to support gold prices this year. Gold's safe-haven attributes will be highlighted by a combination of events spread across the calendar year, which we believe will put a floor under the metal's price (Chart 8).9 Political and economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated this year (Chart 9). Our Geopolitical Strategists see this year's gold-relevant risks stemming from two main factors: (1) U.S. political risks, and (2) Exogenous tail risks. The former is likely to be a more significant source of upside pressure. Chart 8Gold Outperforms During##BR##Geopolitical Crises Chart 9Elevated Policy Uncertainty##BR##Supports Gold U.S. Foreign Strategy Risks Will Keep Gold Bid U.S. political risks are rooted in President Trump's strategic decisions, and boil down to two mutually exclusive schemes ahead of the midterm elections: Domestic Strategy or Foreign Strategy (Table 1). Our Geopolitical strategists note: "... policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy."10 Trump's propensity to take on a more aggressive stance in foreign policy - which would be boosted by an unfavorable outcome in the immigration bill - will set the stage for a volatile year, supporting gold via its ability to hedge against geopolitical risks (Chart 10). Table 1Trump's Two-Level Game Chart 10Trump Will Look To Revive His Political Capital In addition to the U.S. political risks, many low-probability high-impact risks will keep volatility elevated this year and could support gold as a strategic portfolio hedge in 2018. Most notable are the following: A meaningful slowdown in China would have a negative impact on the global economy, as well as increase the risk of a monetary policy mistake in the U.S. The Fed's monetary policy decision is important for EM growth, while EM growth contributes to U.S. inflation, this feedback system makes the expected slowdown in Chinese growth relevant to the U.S. monetary stance. If China slows more than expected, this would reduce the global demand for commodities and goods, diminishing U.S. inflation expectations, potentially forcing the Fed to reassess its rate hike pace. If no adjustments are made, the Fed risks overshooting the equilibrium interest rate, increasing the risk of an equity correction. A downward rate hike adjustment, would keep the USD and real rates at low levels. A global oil-supply disruption caused by a collapse of the Venezuelan economy would lead to a short-lived spike in oil prices (Chart 11). In low-spare-capacity environments - as we are in today - oil prices become more responsive to supply shocks. Based on our simulations, a 600k b/d drop in Venezuelan oil supply in 2018 could spike oil prices by ~$10/bbl, leading to higher cost-push inflation. Our modelling shows U.S. CPI is highly responsive to oil price variation. This spike in headline inflation would push gold prices higher. Chart 11Cost-Push Inflation Risk From Venezuela Collapse In addition to U.S.-Iran tensions, we see other potential catalysts to instability in the Middle East - mainly regarding a severe deterioration of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, and Iraqi-Kurdish clashes ahead of Iraqi elections. Lastly, Europe: Italian elections and Euro-skepticism are a longer-term risk; however, news around the Italian elections in March has the potential to fuel talk of a potential breakup, which could lift gold.11 Bottom Line: Increased tensions due to Trump's controversial foreign strategy (China and Iran), as well as exogenous tail risks throughout the year will keep risks elevated in 2018, supporting gold prices. In fact our geopolitical strategists believe risks are understated this year, increasing the utility of gold's ability to hedge against political turmoil. Gold Outperforms In Equity Bear Markets In addition to its ability to hedge against rising inflation and increased geopolitical risks, gold outperforms during equity downturns and amid market volatility.12 Specifically, during periods of negative equity returns, gold outperformed the S&P500 79% of the time, with an average excess return of 3.7%. Furthermore, gold outperforms equities 60% of the time in periods of rising VIX with an average excess monthly return of 1.6% in these periods, and only 30% of the time in decreasing VIX periods with an average monthly excess return of -1.8% (Chart 12).13 We expect the equity bull market to remain intact throughout 2018. An equity downturn is not expected before 2H19. Nevertheless, we expect volatility to increase this year as investors fret about the sustainability of the bull market, and amid heightened geopolitical tensions. Moreover, domestic U.S. developments - e.g., the evolution of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation; a larger-than-expected Democrat win in the midterm elections or a Fed policy mistake - could affect investor sentiment and trigger a rise in volatility and a temporary sell-off in S&P 500. In our view, consumer confidence is a key contributor to the current equity bull market and currently stands at very elevated levels (Chart 13). Thus, any meaningful disappointment could derail this high-confidence environment. Chart 12Gold Outperforms Amid##BR##Volatility & Equity Downturns Chart 13High Confidence##BR##Environment At Risk Therefore, we believe the larger-than-expected tail risks and the monetary and political risks in the U.S. are not fully reflected in the gold market (Chart 14). The above risks assessment would suggest a fatter right tail in out-of-the-money gold options. Chart 14Rising Volatility Will Support Gold Chart 15Understated Geopolitical Risks This Year Bottom Line: While geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, they are understated this year (Chart 15). Thus we do not expect a repeat of last year's low-VIX high-confidence environment. Rather gold will gain support from increased equity volatility this year. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled "The Impact of Robots on Inflation," dated January 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On," dated January 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled "It's Still All About Inflation," dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Indefatigable Euro," dated January 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Fed Officials See Benefits In Letting Inflation Run Above Target," dated January 19, 2018, available at Bloomberg.com. 8 Please see https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 For a comprehensive analysis of this issue, please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 13 Excess returns = (Gold - S&P 500) monthly returns. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, recent market action is beginning to resemble a classic late cycle blow-off phase. The fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. The S&P 500 could return 14% or more this year. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018. Valuation is stretched and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy. This month we compare valuation across the major asset classes. U.S. equities are the most overvalued, followed by gold, raw industrials and EM assets. Oil is still close to fair value. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. Investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but a risk management approach means that they should not try to squeeze out the last few percentage points of return. In terms of the sequencing of the exit from risk, the most consistent lead/lag relationship relative to previous tops in the equity market is provided by U.S. corporate bonds. For this reason, we are likely to take profits on corporates before equities. EM assets are already at underweight. We still see a window for the U.S. dollar to appreciate, although by only about 5%. A lot of good news is discounted in the euro, peripheral core inflation is slowing and ECB policymakers are getting nervous. Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. The economy and inflation should justify four Fed rate hikes in 2018 no matter the makeup. The bond bear phase will continue. Feature Chart I-1Investors Are Giddy U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, though, recent market action is beginning to resemble the classic late cycle blow-off phase. Such blow-offs can be highly profitable, but also make it more difficult to properly time the market top. Our base case is that the fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018 and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy (Chart I-1). These indicators include investor sentiment, our speculation index, and the bull-to-bear ratio. Net S&P earnings revisions and the U.S. economic surprise index are also extremely elevated, while equity and bond implied volatility are near all-time lows. From a contrarian perspective, these observations suggest that a lot of good news is discounted and that the market is vulnerable to even slight disappointments. It is also a bad sign that our Revealed Preference Indicator moved off of its bullish equity signal in January (see Section III for more details). Meanwhile, central banks are beginning to take away the punchbowl as global economic slack dissipates. This is all late-cycle stuff. Equity valuation does not help investors time the peak in markets, but it does tell us something about downside risk and medium-term expected returns. The Shiller P/E ratio has surged above 30 (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 highlights that, historically, average total returns were negligible over the subsequent 10-year period when the Shiller P/E was in the 30-40 range. Granted, the Shiller P/E will likely fall mechanically later this year as the collapse of earnings in 2008 begins to drop out of the 10-year EPS calculation. Nonetheless, even the BCA Composite Valuation indicator, which includes some metrics that account for extremely low bond yields, surpassed +1 standard deviations in January (our threshold for overvaluation; Chart I-2, bottom panel). An overvaluation signal means that investors should be biased to take profits early. Chart I-2BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma Chart I-3Expected Returns Given Starting Point Shiller P/E As we highlighted in our 2018 Outlook Report, long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but we need to be vigilant in terms of scouring for signals to take profits. A risk management approach means that investors should not try to get the last few percentage points of return before the peak. U.S. Earnings And Repatriation Before we turn to the timing and sequence of our exit from risk assets, we will first update our thoughts on the earnings cycle. Fourth quarter U.S. earnings season is still in its early innings, but the banking sector has set an upbeat tone. S&P 500 profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS growth estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher (from 12% growth to 16%) in a mere three weeks on the back of Congress' cut to the corporate tax rate.1 U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Our short-term profit model remains extremely upbeat (Chart I-4). The positive profit outlook for the first half of the year is broadly based across sectors as well, according to the recently updated EPS forecast models from BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service.2 The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. Studies of the 2004 repatriation legislation show that most of the funds "brought home" were paid out to shareholders, mostly in the form of buybacks. A NBER report estimated that for every dollar repatriated, 92 cents was subsequently paid out to shareholders in one form or another. The surge in buybacks occurred in 2005, according to the U.S. Flow of Funds accounts and a proxy using EPS growth less total dollar earnings growth for the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). The contribution to EPS growth from buybacks rose to more than 3 percentage points at the peak in 2005. Chart I-4Profit Growth Still Accelerating Chart I-5U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS We expect that most of the repatriated funds will again flow through to shareholders, rather than be used to pay down debt or spent on capital goods. Cash has not been a constraint to capital spending in recent years outside of perhaps the small business sector, which has much less to gain from the tax holiday. A revival in animal spirits and capital spending is underway, but this has more to do with the overall tax package and global growth than the ability of U.S. companies to repatriate overseas earnings. Estimates of how much the repatriation could boost EPS vary widely. Most of it will occur in the Tech and Health Care sectors. Buybacks appear to have lifted EPS growth by roughly one percentage point over the past year. We would not be surprised to see this accelerate by 1-2 percentage points, although the timing could be delayed by a year if the 2004 tax holiday provides the correct timeline. This is certainly positive for the equity market, but much of the impact could already be discounted in prices. Organic earnings growth, and the economic and policy outlook will be the main drivers of equity market returns over the next year. We expect some profit margin contraction later this year, but our 5% EPS growth forecast is beginning to look too conservative. This is especially the case because it does not include the corporate tax cuts. The amount by which the tax cuts will boost earnings on an after-tax basis is difficult to estimate, but we are using 5% as a conservative estimate. Adding 2% for buybacks and 2% for dividends, the S&P 500 could provide an attractive 14% total return this year (assuming no multiple expansion). Timing The Exit Chart I-6Timing The Exit (I) That said, we noted in last month's Report and in BCA's 2018 Outlook that this will be a transition year. We expect a recession in the U.S. sometime in 2019 as the Fed lifts rates into restrictive territory. Equities and other risk assets will sniff out the recession about six months in advance, which means that investors should be preparing to take profits sometime during the next 12 months. Last month we discussed some of the indicators we will watch to help us time the exit. The 2/10 Treasury yield curve has been a reliable recession indicator in the past. However, the lead time on the peak in stocks was quite extended at times (Chart I-6). A shift in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We are likely to take some money off the table if core inflation is rising, even if it is still below 2%, at the time that the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. We will also be watching seven indicators that we have found to be useful in heralding market tops, which are summarized in our Scorecard Indicator (Chart I-7). At the moment, four out of the seven indicators are positive (Chart I-8): State of the Business Cycle: As early signals that the economy is softening, watch for the ISM new orders minus inventories indicator to slip below zero, or the 3-month growth rate of unemployment claims to rise above zero. Monetary and Financial Conditions: Using interest rates to judge the stance of monetary policy has been complicated by central banks' use of their balance sheet as a policy tool. Thus, it is better to use two of our proprietary indicators: the BCA Monetary Indicator (MI) and the Financial Conditions Indictor. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Similarly, equities tend to perform well when the FCI is above its 250-day moving average. The MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. However, the broader FCI remains well in 'bullish' territory. Price Momentum: We simply use the S&P 500 relative to its 200-day moving average to measure momentum. Currently, the index is well above that level, providing a bullish signal for the Scorecard. Sentiment: Our research shows that stock returns have tended to be highest following periods when sentiment is bearish but improving. In contrast, returns have tended to be lowest following periods when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. The Scorecard includes the BCA Speculation Indicator to capture sentiment, but virtually all measures of sentiment are very high. The next major move has to be down by definition. Thus, sentiment is assigned a negative value in the Scorecard. Value: As discussed above, value is poor based on the Shiller P/E and the BCA Composite Valuation indicator. Valuation may not help with timing, but we include it in our Scorecard because an overvalued signal means investors should err on the side of getting out early. Chart I-7Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Chart I-8Timing The Exit (II) We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Table I-1Exit Checklist To our Checklist we add the U.S. Leading Economic index, which has a good track record of calling recessions. However, we will use the LEI excluding the equity market, since we are using it as an indicator for the stock market. It is bullish at the moment. Our Global LEI is also flashing green. Table I-1 provides a summary checklist for trimming equity exposure. At the moment, 2 out of 9 indicators are bearish. Cross Asset Valuation Comparison Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to scale out of risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the ones that are most overvalued are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken the earliest. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time period? Since there is no widely accepted approach, we include multiple measures. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table I-2 provides out 'best guestimate' for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table I-2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes We averaged the valuation readings in cases where there are multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart I-9. Chart I-9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive by far, at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads come next at 0.7, followed closely by U.S. Treasurys (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are quite expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are expensive. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up over the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive at the moment because the fundamentals point to higher prices at a time when the underlying asset is not expensive. Sequencing Around Past S&P 500 Peaks Historical analysis around equity market peaks provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table I-3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table I-3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, Tech stocks, or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they peaked before the S&P 500, and sometime after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyse due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time is long and variable. The most consistent lead/lag relationship is given by the U.S. corporate bond market. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio in advance of scaling back on equities. But the 'return of vol' that we expect to occur later this year will take a toll on carry trades more generally. We are already underweight EM equities and bonds. This EM recommendation has not gone in our favor, but it would make little sense to upgrade them now given our positive views on volatility and the dollar. An unwinding of carry trades will also hit the high-yielding currencies outside of the EM space, such as the Kiwi and Aussie dollar. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over to the EM economies as we expect. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of the Chinese economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 is likely to cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, helping to keep prices elevated. We therefore may not trim energy exposure this year. As for equity sectors, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price themes keep us overweight the Industrials, Energy and Financial sectors. Utilities and Homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. That said, our sector specialists are already beginning a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives for risk management purposes. This transition will continue in the coming months as we de-risk. We are also shifting small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels. The Dollar Pain Trade Market shifts since our last publication have largely gone in our favor; stocks have surged, corporate bonds spreads have tightened, oil prices have spiked, bonds have sold off and cyclical stocks have outperformed defensives. One area that has gone against us is the U.S. dollar. Relative interest rate expectations have moved in favor of the dollar as we expected at both the short- and long-ends of the curve. Nonetheless, the dollar has not tracked its historical relationship versus both the yen and euro. The Greenback did not even get a short-term boost from the passage of the tax plan and holiday on overseas earnings. Perhaps this is because the lion's share of "overseas" earnings are already held in U.S. dollars. Reportedly, a large fraction is even held in U.S. banks on U.S. territory. Currency conversion is thus not a major bullish factor for the U.S. dollar. The recent bout of dollar weakness began around the time of the release of the ECB Minutes in January which were interpreted as hawkish because they appeared to be preparing markets for changes in monetary policy. The European debt crisis and economic recession were the reasons for the ECB's asset purchases and negative interest rate policy. Neither of these conditions are in place now. The ECB is meeting as we go to press, and we expect some small adjustments in the Statement that remove references to the need for "crisis" level accommodations. Subsequent steps will be to prepare markets for a complete end to QE, perhaps in September, and then for rates hikes likely in 2019. The key point is that European monetary policy has moved beyond 'peak stimulus' and the normalization process will continue. Perhaps this is partly to blame for euro strength although, as mentioned above, interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar. Does this mean that the dollar has peaked and has entered a cyclical bear phase that will persist over the next 6-12 months? The answer is 'no', although we are less bullish than in the past. We believe there is still a window for the dollar to appreciate against the euro and in broader trade-weighted terms by about 5%. First, a lot of euro-bullish news has been discounted (Chart I-10). Positive economic surprises heavily outstripped that in the U.S. last year, but that phase is now over. The euro appears expensive based on interest rate differentials, and euro sentiment is close to a bullish extreme. This all suggests that market positioning has become a negative factor for the currency. Chart I-10Euro: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted Second, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers, including Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Policymakers' concerns may partly reflect the fact that peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 0.6% from a high of 1.3% in April last year (Chart I-10, fourth panel). Third, U.S. consumer price and wage inflation have yet to pick up meaningfully. The dollar should receive a lift if core U.S. inflation clearly moves toward the Fed's 2% target, as we expect. The FOMC would suddenly appear to have fallen behind the curve and U.S. rate expectations would ratchet higher. Chart I-10, bottom panel, highlights that the euro will weaken if U.S. core inflation rises versus that in the Eurozone. The implication is that the Euro's appreciation has progressed too far and is due for a pullback. As for the yen, the currency surged in January when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced a reduction in long-dated JGB purchases. This simply acknowledged what has already occurred. It was always going to be impossible to target both the quantity of bond purchases and the level of 10-year yield simultaneously. Keeping yields near the target required less purchases than they thought. The market interpreted the BoJ's move as a possible prelude to lifting the 10-year yield target. It is perhaps not surprising that the market took the news this way. The economy is performing extremely well; our model that incorporates high-frequency economic data suggests that real GDP growth will move above 3% in the coming quarters. The Japanese economy is benefiting from the end of a fiscal drag and from a rebound in EM growth. Nonetheless, following January's BoJ policy meeting, Kuroda poured cold water on speculation that the BoJ may soon end or adjust the YCC. Recent speeches by BoJ officials reinforce the view that the MPC wants to see an overshoot of actual inflation that will lower real interest rates and thereby reinforce the strong economic activity that is driving higher inflation. Only then will officials be convinced that their job is done. Given that inflation excluding food and energy only stands at 0.3%, the BoJ is still a long way from the overshoot it desires. On the positive side, Japan's large current account surplus and yen undervaluation provide underlying support for the currency. Balancing the offsetting positive and negative forces, our foreign exchange strategists have shifted to neutral on the yen. The Euro remains underweight while the dollar is overweight. Similar to our dollar view, we still see a window for U.S. Treasurys to underperform the global hedged fixed-income benchmark as world bond yields shift higher this year. European government bonds will also sell off, but should outperform Treasurys. JGBs will provide the best refuge for bondholders during the global bond bear phase, since the BoJ will prevent a rise in yields inside of the 10-year maturity. Our global bond strategists upgraded U.K. gilts to overweight in January. Momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. FOMC Transition Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. An abrupt shift in policy is unlikely. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of nominal GDP or price level targeting as a policy framework, but this has been an ongoing debate that will likely continue for years to come. The Fed will remain committed to its current monetary policy framework once Powell takes over. Table I-4 provides a summary of who will be on the FOMC next year, including their policy bias. Chart I-11 compares the recent FOMC makeup with the coming Powell FOMC (voting members only). The hawk/dove ratio will not change much under Powell, unless Trump stacks the vacant spots with hawks. Table I-4Composition Of The FOMC Chart I-11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In any event, history shows that the FOMC strives to avoid major shifts in policy around changeovers in the Fed Chair. In previous transitions, the previous path for rates was maintained by an average of 13 months. Moreover, Powell has shown that he is not one to rock the boat during his time on the FOMC. It will be the evolution of the economy and inflation, not the composition of the FOMC, that will have the biggest impact on markets at the end of the day. Recent speeches reveal that policymakers across the hawk/dove spectrum are moving modesty toward the hawkish side because growth has accelerated at a time when unemployment is already considered to be below full-employment by many policymakers. The melt-up in equity indexes in January did little to calm worries about financial excesses either. The Fed is struggling to understand the strength of the structural factors that could be holding down inflation. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 21, focusses on the impact of robot automation. While advances on this front are impressive, we conclude that it is difficult to find evidence that robots are more deflationary than previous technological breakthroughs. Thus, increased robot usage should not prevent inflation from rising as the labor market continues to tighten. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking at least as fast as the dots currently forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The unemployment rate is more likely to reach a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. As highlighted in last month's Report, a key risk to the bull market in risk assets is the end of the 'low vol/low rate' world. The selloff in the bond market in January may mark the start of this process. Conclusions We covered a lot of ground in this month's Overview of the markets, so we will keep the conclusions brief and focused on the risks. Our key point is that the fundamentals remain positive for risk assets, but that a lot of good news is discounted and it appears that we have entered a classic blow-off phase. This will be a transition year to a recession in the U.S. in 2019. Given that valuation for most risk assets is quite stretched, and given that the monetary taps are starting to close, investors must plan for the exit and keep an eye on our timing checklist. The main risk to our pro-cyclical portfolio is a rise in U.S. inflation and the Fed's response, which we believe will end the sweet spot for risk assets. Apart from this, our geopolitical strategists point to several other items that could upset the applecart this year:3 1. Trade China has cooperated with the U.S. in trying to tame North Korea. Nonetheless, President Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and he may need to show some muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections in November in order to rally his base. It is politically embarrassing to the Administration that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in Trump's first year in office. A key question is whether the President goes after China via a series of administrative rulings - such as the recently announced tariffs on solar panels and white goods - or whether he applies an across-the-board tariff and/or fine. The latter would have larger negative macroeconomic implications. 2. Iran On January 12, President Trump threatened not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12), unless some new demands are met. Pressure from the U.S. President comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters. The domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. For the time being, however, we expect only a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish House View on oil prices. 3. China Last month's Special Report highlighted that significant structural reforms are on the way in China, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. The reforms should be growth-positive in the long term, but could be a net negative for growth in the near term depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. The risk is that the authorities make a policy mistake by staying too tight, as occurred in 2015. We are monitoring a number of indicators that should warn if a policy mistake is unfolding. On this front, January brought some worrying economic data. The latest figures for both nominal imports and money growth slowed. Given that M2 and M3 are components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. First, China's trade numbers are highly volatile; nominal import growth remains elevated after smoothing the data. Second, China's export growth remains buoyant, consistent with a solid December PMI reading. The bottom line is that we are sticking with our view that China will experience a benign deceleration in terms of its impact on DM risk assets, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 25, 2018 Next Report: February 22, 2018 1 According to Thomson Reuters/IBES. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 For more information, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Also see "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018. II. The Impact Of Robots On Inflation Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27. III. Indicators And Reference Charts As we highlight in the Overview section, the earnings backdrop for the U.S. equity market remains very upbeat, as highlighted by the rise in the net earnings revisions and net earnings surprises indexes. Bottom-up analysts will likely continue to boost after-tax earnings estimates for the year as they adjust to the U.S. tax cut news. Our main concern is that a lot of good news is now discounted. Our Technical Indicator remains bullish, but our composite valuation indicator surpassed one sigma in January, which is our threshold of overvaluation. From these levels of overvaluation, the medium-term outlook for equity total returns is negligible. Our speculation index is at all-time highs and implied volatility is low, underscoring that investors are extremely bullish. From a contrary perspective, this is a warning sign for the equity market. Our Monetary Indicator has also moved further into 'bearish' territory for equities, although overall financial conditions remain positive for growth. It is also disconcerting that our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) shifted to a 'sell' signal for stocks, following five straight months on a 'buy' signal. This occurred because investors may be buying based on speculation rather than on a firm belief in the staying power of the underlying fundamentals. For now, though, our Willingness-to-Pay indicator for the U.S. rose sharply in January, highlighting that investor equity inflows are very strong and are favoring U.S. equities relative to Japan and the Eurozone. This is perhaps not surprising given the U.S. tax cuts just passed by Congress. The RPI indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our U.S. bond technical indicator shows that Treasurys are close to oversold territory, suggesting that we may be in store for a consolidation period following January's surge in yields. Treasurys are slightly cheap on our valuation metric, although not by enough to justify closing short duration positions. The U.S. dollar is oversold and due for a bounce. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Duration: The modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. Maintain below-benchmark duration. 10-Year Yield: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Risk Premiums & Treasury Returns: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Feature Chart 1The Long End Catching The Train The sell-off in U.S. bond markets continued last week with the 10-year yield breaking above its previous peak of 2.62%. Of course yields at the short end of the curve made new cyclical highs long ago and have increased even further during the past few weeks (Chart 1). In this report we look at both the long and short ends of the yield curve and ask whether yields are finally fairly priced. But first, a quick re-cap of our cyclical investment stance. In our prior two bulletins we noted that the cyclical outlook for bonds remains bearish, and this continues to be the case. The main reason is that, despite recent increases, the long-term cost of inflation protection is still below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. However, we have also warned that the message from some near-term technical indicators is starting to shift. Specifically, net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures are now 2% net short. Positioning at these levels has historically been consistent with a modest decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months (Chart 2). Also, the U.S. Economic Surprise Index (ESI) sits at a lofty +65 and is poised to mean revert as investor expectations grow increasingly optimistic. Our simple auto-regressive model of the ESI projects that it will decline to +28 during the next month.1 A positive value on the ESI is consistent with a continued increase in Treasury yields (Chart 3), but we will be watching closely for signs that the ESI is about to break below zero. Chart 2Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (I) Chart 3Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (II) Taken together, the modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. We therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration bias. We also maintain our overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Though inflationary pressure in the economy is starting to build, it is still not sufficient to spur significant spread widening. We will elaborate further on our spread product views in next week's report. How High For The 10-Year? In the current environment we find it instructive to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield - and consider each in turn. Inflation Chart 4TIPS Breakevens Are Still Low As was mentioned in the first section of this report, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen a lot. From a trough of 1.66% last June to 2.05% as of last Friday. But this is still somewhat too low (Chart 4). Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% when realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. With inflation almost certain to move back to the Fed's target before the end of the cycle, and indeed our Pipeline Inflation Indicator shows that inflationary pressures continue to build (Chart 4, bottom panel), there is still another 35 bps to 45 bps of cyclical upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. Real Yield As for the 10-year real yield, a simple model introduced in a report last month shows that it is driven by a combination of: The fed funds rate. The expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months, as measured by our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Implied rate volatility as measured by the MOVE index. Included as a proxy for the term premium embedded in 10-year yields. The model is shown in Chart 5, where we also incorporate very conservative assumptions for each of the three independent variables. We assume that: The fed funds rate is raised three times this year, in line with the FOMC's median projection (Chart 5, panel 2). The 12-month discounter falls to 25 bps by year end. In other words, we assume that by then investors will only be looking for one rate hike only in 2019 (Chart 5, panel 3). The MOVE volatility index stays flat at historically low levels (Chart 5, bottom panel).2 Chart 5A Simple Model Of The Real 10-Year Treasury Yield The key message from Chart 5 is that it is very difficult to craft a reasonable scenario where the 10-year real yield has meaningful downside from current levels. Even using the benign assumptions described above, our model projects that the 10-year real yield will increase 4 bps in the next 11 months. From current levels that suggests a 10-year real yield of 0.61% by the end of the year. Summing it all up, on a cyclical horizon we project another 35 bps to 45 bps of upside in the inflation component of the 10-year Treasury yield, and at least 4 bps of upside in the real component. This suggests that the 10-year nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.01% and 3.11% by the time that inflation reaches the Fed's target. Bottom Line: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Is The Front End Fairly Priced? At this time last year the 1-year Treasury yield was 0.84% and the fed funds rate was 0.66%. During the past 12 months the fed funds rate rose from 0.66% to 1.42%, equating to an average fed funds rate of 1.10% during this period (using monthly compounding). An investor who bought a 1-year Treasury note last year and held to maturity would have earned a risk premium of -26 bps relative to a position in cash. Not a great return by any means, but yields have moved a lot since then. The 1-year yield is now 1.79% and the 2-year yield is 2.05%. Is it possible that front-end yields now provide adequate compensation for the path of rate hikes during the next 1-2 years? And more importantly, does the risk premium earned on short-maturity notes tell us anything about the total returns we can expect to earn from the overall Treasury index? These are the two questions we consider in this section. Calculating The Ex-Ante Risk Premium In Short-Maturity Yields Table 1 shows three different scenarios for the path of Fed rate hikes during the next two years. The median FOMC scenario assumes that the funds rate rises in line with the Fed's median projection. That is, the rate is lifted three times this year and twice next year. The hawkish scenario assumes that the funds rate is raised once per quarter between now and mid-2019, and the dovish scenario assumes that after hiking rates in March and June of this year the Fed is forced to go on hold. Table 1Fed Rate Hikes Scenarios & The Implied Risk Premium We see that the 1-year yield is priced exactly in line with the FOMC's median projection. That is, if the fed funds rate is hiked three times in 2018, then 12 months from now an investor will have been indifferent between a position in a 1-year note and a position in cash. In this same scenario an investor holding a 2-year note to maturity will end up losing 4 bps relative to a position in cash. Unsurprisingly, the hawkish scenario leads to much more negative realized risk premiums for both 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity trades. The dovish scenario leads to a small positive risk premium on a 2-year horizon, but a small negative risk premium on a 1-year horizon. This is because our dovish scenario still assumes there are two rate hikes this year. Our initial conclusion is that despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Especially since a position in a 1-year or 2-year note is somewhat riskier than a position in cash, due to the additional duration risk. Short-Maturity Risk Premiums And Treasury Returns But there is one more possible application for the above analysis. We calculated the actual risk premiums earned in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity positions going back to 1973, and found that these risk premiums correlate quite well with changes in the average yield for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index for the same time horizon. In other words, 12-month periods in which an investor in a 1-year note would have earned a positive risk premium relative to an investor in cash tend to coincide with a falling Treasury index yield, and vice-versa (Chart 6). The correlation is even stronger on a 2-year horizon (Chart 7). Chart 61-Year Risk Premium & 12-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Chart 72-Year Risk Premium & 24-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Using the relationships from Charts 6 & 7 we are able to calculate the expected change in the average index Treasury yield in each of our three scenarios for Fed rate hikes. We can then translate those yield changes into expectations for total returns from the Treasury index. Those projected total return figures are shown in the final column of Table 1. Our calculation shows that the median FOMC scenario translates into a projected Treasury index 1-year total return of 2.7%, and an annualized 2-year return of 1.7%. The annualized 2-year return in the hawkish scenario is only 84 bps, while it is 2.3% in the dovish scenario. Chart 8Very Low Returns On The Horizon Of course, these figures come with a good deal of uncertainty. Nowhere in the calculation do we consider possible price changes in longer-maturity bonds, which of course are a significant part of the index. In fact, Chart 8 shows that while the total return projections derived from this exercise give a good sense of the general direction in Treasury index returns, there is still considerable variability from year to year. Perhaps the most accurate statement we can make is that with 1-year and 2-year risk premiums likely to be negative - or at least very close to zero - during the next 1-2 years, we should also expect very low total returns from the overall Treasury index. Bottom Line: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract. The trade has gained 64 bps since we initiated it. We are lifting the stop to 60 bps and targeting a profit of 75 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities. The trade is up 13.1%. We are targeting a profit of 15%, and are tightening the stop further to 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts. The trade is up 0.7%. We see this as a multi-year trade with significant upside potential. The unwinding of heavy short positions could cause the yen to strengthen temporarily. The euro is vulnerable to negative growth surprises. A retracement of some of its recent gains is likely. Feature Looking Back, Thinking Forward I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's Annual Investment Conference held in New York on September 27th of last year where I offered three "tantalizing" trade ideas. Chart 1 reviews their performance. They were the following: Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract We argued last summer that U.S. growth was likely to accelerate, taking rate expectations higher. That has indeed happened. Aggregate hours worked rose by 2.5% in Q4 over the previous quarter. Assuming that productivity increased by 1.5% in Q4 - equal to the pace recorded in Q3 - real GDP probably increased by nearly 4%. A variety of leading indicators point to continued above-trend growth in the months ahead (Chart 2). Chart 1Three Tantalizing Trades: ##br##An Update Chart 2Leading Indicators Pointing ##br##To Above-Trend U.S. Growth We think the Fed will raise rates four times this year, one more hike than projected by the dots and roughly 35 bps more in tightening than implied by current market expectations. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. We have been saying for a while that above-trend growth will take the unemployment rate down to a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. If the unemployment rate falls this much, the Fed will probably turn more hawkish. Stronger inflation numbers should also give the Fed confidence to keep raising rates once per quarter. Core inflation surprised on the upside in December. We expect this trend to continue in the coming months, as the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, and our own proprietary pipeline inflation index are already foreshadowing (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Inflation ##br##Should Accelerate Chart 4A Pick-Up In Wage Growth ##br##Would Put Upward Pressure On Service Inflation As we noted two weeks ago,1 service sector inflation should get a lift from faster wage growth this year (Chart 4). Goods inflation should also rise on the back of higher oil prices and the lagged effects of a weaker dollar (Chart 5). In addition, health care inflation is likely to pick up from its current depressed level, especially if the Congressional Budget Office is correct that insurance premiums will rise due to the elimination of the individual mandate (Chart 6). Housing inflation will moderate, but this is unlikely to stymie the Fed's tightening plans since excessively low interest rates could lead to even more overbuilding in the increasingly vulnerable commercial real estate sector. Chart 5Higher Oil Prices And A Weaker Dollar ##br##Are A Tailwind For Inflation Chart 6Health Care Inflation ##br##Should Move Higher Granted, four rate hikes equal four opportunities to defer raising rates. It is easy to imagine scenarios where the Fed stands pat, but hard to conjure scenarios where the Fed has to raise rates five times or more this year. Thus, the risk to our four-hike view is to the downside. As such, we will be looking to take profits of 75 bps on the trade, and are putting in a stop of 60 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities Capital spending tends to accelerate in the late innings of business-cycle expansions. We are in such a phase now, as evidenced by capital goods orders, capex intention surveys, and our global capex model (Chart 7). Increased capital spending will benefit industrial companies. Conversely, rising bond yields will hurt rate-sensitive utilities. Valuations in the industrial sector have gotten stretched, but are not at extreme levels (Chart 8). Based on enterprise value-to-EBITDA, industrials are still only slightly more expensive than utilities compared to their post-1990 average. Chart 7Capex Is Shifting Into ##br##Higher Gear Chart 8Industrial Stocks: Valuations Are Stretched, ##br## But Not Yet Extreme While we do think global growth will slow this year from the heady pace of 2017, it should remain firmly above-trend. A bigger-than-expected slowdown - especially if it is concentrated in China - would undoubtedly hurt industrials. A stronger dollar could also be a headwind. Thus, we are keeping this trade on a short leash, with a target of 15% and a stop of 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts The Japanese economy is on fire. Growth almost reached 2% in 2017 and leading indicators suggest a solid start to 2018 (Chart 9). The unemployment rate has fallen to 2.7%, a full point below 2007 levels. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has surpassed its bubble peak. The Tankan Employment Conditions Index is pointing to an exceptionally tight labor market. Wages excluding overtime pay are rising at the fastest pace in twenty years (Chart 10). Chart 9Japanese Growth Momentum Is Positive Chart 10Signs Of A Tight Labor Market Inflation is low but is starting to edge up. The most recent release surprised on the upside. Inflation expectations moved higher on the news, benefiting our long Japanese 10-year CPI swap trade recommendation (Chart 11). A simple scatterplot between the unemployment rate and core inflation suggests the Phillips curve remains intact in Japan -- amazingly, it even looks like Japan (Chart 12)! Chart 11Inflation Expectations Have Edged Higher Chart 12The Phillips Curve In Japan Looks Like Japan Still, with core inflation excluding food and energy running at only 0.3%, there is a long way to go before inflation reaches the BoJ's target -- and even longer if the BoJ honours its promise to generate a meaningful overshoot to compensate for the below-target inflation of prior years. This suggests the BoJ will not meaningfully water down its Yield Curve Control regime anytime soon. As such, five-year yields are likely to stay put while yields with maturities in excess of ten years should move higher. Our "tantalizing trade" being short 20-year JGBs versus their 5-year counterparts still has a long way to run. Too Risky To Short The Yen The exceptionally strong correlation between USD/JPY and U.S. Treasury yields has broken down this year (Chart 13). Had the relationship held, the yen would have actually weakened against the dollar. Still, we are reluctant to get too bearish on the yen (Chart 14). The yen real effective exchange rate is close to multi-decade lows. Positioning on the currency is heavily short. The current account surplus has mushroomed from close to zero in 2014 to 4% of GDP at present. And even if the BoJ keeps the Yield Curve Control regime in place, investors may still anticipate its demise, leading to a temporary bout of yen strength. Chart 13Strong Correlation Is Broken Chart 14Too Risky To Short The Yen What's Propping Up The Euro? The euro has been on a tear since last week, egged on by the ECB minutes, which hinted at a faster pace of monetary normalization. Growing confidence that Angela Merkel will be able to form a grand coalition also helped the common currency, along with hopes that the new government will loosen the fiscal purse strings. The euro is often thought of as the "anti-dollar." And sure enough, the euro's strength has been reflected in a broad-based decline in the dollar index in recent days. BCA's Global Investment Strategy service went long the dollar on October 31, 2014. We "doubled up" on this call in the fall of 2016, controversially arguing that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally." Obviously, in retrospect, I should have rung the register and declared victory on our long dollar view when I had the chance. EUR/USD fell to 1.04 on December 2016, within striking distance of our parity target. Bullish dollar sentiment had reached unsustainably lofty levels. That was the time to sell the greenback. But hubris got the best of me. While our other currency trade recommendations have delivered net gains of 11% since the start of 2017, the long DXY trade has stuck out like a sore thumb. Hindsight is 20/20. The key question is what to do today. EUR/USD is still trading below the level it was at when we went long the DXY. Relative to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate of 1.32, the euro is 7% undervalued. That said, PPP exchange rates may not be a reliable benchmark in this case. Given current market expectations, EUR/USD would need to strengthen to 1.41 over the next ten years just to cover the carry cost of being short the dollar. Even assuming lower inflation in the euro area, that would still leave the euro trading above its long-term fair value. It is possible, of course, that rate differentials will narrow further, but the scope for this is more limited than it might appear. The market currently expects policy rates ten years out to be 95 basis points higher in the U.S., down from a spread of nearly 180 basis points in late December (Chart 15). Given that euro area inflation expectations are 40-to-50 bps lower than in the U.S., this implies a real spread of about 50 bps - broadly in line with our estimate of the real neutral rate gap between the two regions. Ultimately, the fate of the euro in 2018 will rest on the same question that drove the currency in 2017: Will euro area growth surprise on the upside, prompting investors to price in a faster pace of monetary normalization? The bar for success is certainly higher at present. Chart 16 shows that euro area consensus growth estimates have risen significantly since the start of last year. The expected lift-off date for policy rates has also shifted in by more than a year to mid-2019. Considering that Jens Weidmann stated earlier this week that he thinks current market pricing is broadly consistent with when the ECB expects to hike rates, there is little scope for the lift-off date to move forward. Chart 15Little Scope For Rate Differentials ##br## To Narrow Further Chart 16Euro Area Growth Estimates Have Been Revised Up ##br##Since The Start Of 2017 Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened significantly in the euro area relative to the U.S., the euro area credit impulse has turned negative, and the U.S. economic surprise index has jumped above that of the euro area (Chart 17). Euro area inflation has also dipped. Especially worrying is that core inflation in Italy has fallen back to a near record-low of 0.4% (Chart 18). How is Italy supposed to navigate its way out of its debt trap if nominal growth stays this weak? On top of all that, long speculative euro positions have soared to record-high levels (Chart 19). Given the choice of betting whether EUR/USD will first hit 1.30 or 1.15, we would go with the latter. If our bet turns out to be correct, we will use that opportunity to shift to neutral on the dollar. Chart 17The Euro Is Vulnerable ##br##To Negative Growth Surprises Chart 18Euro Area Core Inflation ##br##Has Dipped Chart 19Euro Positioning: From Deeply Short ##br##To Record Long Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The euro is in a cyclical bull market. It is supported by attractive valuations, improving balance of payments dynamics, declining political risk, potential shifts in reserves preferences, and a re-rating of the European terminal rate. This positive cyclical backdrop hides a more treacherous short-term outlook. EUR/USD is vulnerable because ECB members are increasingly worried, the European periphery is displaying early strains, European inflation will slow versus the U.S., global industrial activity may experience a mini down cycle, and sentiment measures are massively stretched. Short EUR/JPY for now, and use any move in EUR/USD to 1.15 or lower to buy this pair. Feature The euro has undergone a major paradigm shift over the course of the past 16 months. In December 2016, the euro was trading near parity, and expectations were uniform that it would fall well below that threshold. The narrative was simple: Europe was turning Japanese, with inflation forever moribund; also, Europe was succumbing to the siren call of nationalism and populism, which meant the euro was bound to break up within the next five years. Meanwhile, the U.S. was on the rebound. Core consumer price inflation was above 2.2%, and U.S. President Donald Trump was set to massively stimulate the American economy, giving a free hand for the Federal Reserve to hike to its heart's content. Today, the picture could not be more different. Investors expect the European Central Bank's first hike to materialize in the summer of 2019, European growth is stellar, and European inflation is not low enough to warrant emergency-level policy rates. As a result, not only is EUR/USD trading above 1.20, but consensus forecasts increasingly see the euro trading into the 1.25 to 1.30 zone by year end. Is EUR/USD at 1.22 a buying or a selling opportunity? Short-term risks are currently elevated for the euro, but a move toward 1.15 would represent a buying opportunity, as the cyclical bear market in the euro is over. The Long-Term Bull Case A crucial long-term positive factor for the euro is that it is cheap. EUR/USD currently trades at a 10% discount to its purchasing-power-parity equilibrium, even after a nearly 17% rally since its December 2016 low. Encapsulating this concept, the real effective exchange rate for the euro remains well below equilibrium (Chart I-1). Additionally, our fundamental long-term fair value model pegs the euro as being almost 1-sigma undervalued. The euro area's balance of payment is also very favorable. It is well known among the investment community that the euro area sports a surplus of 3.5% of GDP, but significant changes are also materializing in the capital account. Portfolios outflows out of the euro area have begun to decrease, as equity inflows are rising and bond outflows are becoming smaller. Moreover, the euro area basic balance is moving into positive territory, which historically has been a precursor to sustainable euro rallies (Chart I-2). The supply of euro for international markets is therefore decreasing. Additionally, the euro area's net international investment position (NIIP), which was as low as -17% of GDP in 2014, will likely move into positive territory toward the end of the year. The NIIP has historically been a strong driver of long-term exchange rate moves.1 Chart I-1The Euro Is Still Cheap Chart I-2The European Balance Of Payments Has Improved Politics too have been moving in the right direction. Euro skepticism is not taking hold in the euro area: Last year's French election was a vivid demonstration that "more Europe" is not electoral poison. Even the Italian elections this coming March may not land much of a blow to the European project: The Five Star Movement is rapidly softening its anti-euro rhetoric, and support for centrist parties is strengthening (Chart I-3). Moreover, a German move toward a grand coalition means Angela Merkel's CDU is very likely to be governing along with a pro-euro SPD, whose campaign theme was "MEGA": Make Europe Great Again. Already, Germany is lending a listening ear to some of Macron's integrationist proposals, and fiscal stimulus could well be in the pipeline. Long-term reserves diversification is also in the euro's favor. A headline last week suggested that China would unload some of its vast holdings of Treasurys. This leak was soon condemned as "Fake News" by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange. However, while the news clearly lacked substance, the reality remains that despite the euro area and the U.S. being similarly sized economies, the euro only represents 20% of allocated global reserves, compared to 65% for the greenback. The greater depth and liquidity of U.S. bond markets contributes to this discrepancy, but the ECB's bond buying, by creating a scarcity of euro denominated securities, has exacerbated the disparity. This latter handicap for the euro will end sometime next fall, and if Europe's integrates further, European bond markets will increasingly become alternatives to U.S. ones. A rebalancing of reserves would principally help the euro by hurting the U.S. dollar: It will become more tenuous for the U.S. to achieve a positive international income balance while sporting a NIIP of -40% of GDP if official international demand for dollars falls (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Italian Centrists Are Gaining Ground Chart I-4The USD Needs Its Reserve Status Finally, the terminal rates differential between the U.S. and the euro area remains well above its long-term average of 110 basis points. Thus, there is scope for a normalization of European terminal rates relative to the U.S. on a long-term basis (Chart I-5). However, an average is only a number. What forces could cause the terminal rate spread between the euro area and the U.S. to normalize over the coming years? European policy is currently very loose when compared to the U.S., which will enable the ECB to play catchup over the coming years. To make this judgment, we look at broad money supply in excess of money demand. Because money demand is an unobserved variable, we have to estimate it. Economic theory argues it should be a positive function of economic activity, wealth and uncertainty. Therefore, to get a sense of what money demand may be, we regress the real broad money aggregates of various countries on uncertainty indices and real wealth.2 The difference between real broad money supply numbers and these estimates represent excess money supply. If a country's excess money is being generated today, it ends up stimulating future economic activity and inflation. This increase in expected nominal growth should contribute to lifting expected interest rates at the long end of the yield curve - i.e. expected terminal rates. As Chart I-6 shows, the stock of excess money supply in the U.S. has stopped growing since 2015. However, it is currently exploding in the euro area as European commercial banks are regaining their health and lending again. The money supply dynamics in Europe signal that the easy policy of the ECB is finally bearing fruit. And as the bottom panel of Chart I-6 illustrates, when European excess money supply increases relative to the U.S., as is currently the case, EUR/USD experiences cyclical rallies.3 This counterinituitive result exists because previous ECB easing is bearing fruits, European asset returns are rising, and economic activity is increasing. As a result, the European terminal rate now has more scope to rise vis-à-vis the U.S. The steepening of the German yield curve relative to the Treasury curve only confirms this message (Chart I-7). Chart I-5The U.S. Terminal Rate Has Room To Fall##br## Against That Of Europe Chart I-6European Excess##br## Money Is Surging Chart I-7Listen To Yield ##br##Curves The five forces described above imply that the euro's move from 1.03 to 1.21 was the first salvo in what is likely to be a long cyclical bull market that could end up driving the euro above 1.40 over many years. However, these factors provide little insight regarding the euro's path over the next three to six months. Bottom Line: The euro is likely to have embarked on a cyclical bull market at the beginning of 2017. Five factors support this judgment: The euro is cheap, the European balance-of-payment backdrop is favorable, political winds in the euro area remain favorable to further European integration, global foreign exchange reserves are very underweight the euro, and the spread between U.S. and euro area expected terminal rates remains well above its long-term average, and has scope to narrow. Murkier Short-Term Outlook While the long-term outlook is very favorable for the euro, the shorter-term outlook is much more clouded. First, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers. In recent days, not only have Vitor Constâncio and Francois Villeroy voiced concerns over the euro's recent strength, but so has Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Additionally, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann stated that the market should not anticipate a rate hike before the summer of 2019, suggesting he would not want to see a more aggressive rate pricing than what is currently at play (Chart I-8). Second, the less competitive and more fragile European periphery is already showing early signs that the sharp appreciation in the euro is causing some pain. Peripheral equities have begun to underperform the stocks of core euro area nations, and are also sharply underperforming U.S. equities. This phenomenon tends to be associated with a weakening euro. Moreover, peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 1.3% from a high of 2% in February last year, the consequence of a tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-9). Chart I-8ECB Doesn't Want This To Change Chart I-9Peripheral Core Inflation In Free Fall Third, the economic environment points to underperformance of aggregate European inflation relative to the U.S. A fall in the gap between euro area and U.S. inflation tends to be associated with short-term gyrations in EUR/USD (Chart I-10). This is because a fall in relative inflation against the euro area causes investors to temporarily tweak the perceived path of future policy differentials. Over the course of 2018, U.S. inflation is set to increase. A simple model based on U.S. capacity utilization and the velocity of money shows that U.S. core CPI could hit 2.1% (Chart I-11). While this model has done a good job picking the turning points in U.S. core inflation, it has consistently overestimated inflation since 2013. Correcting for this bias, the model still forecasts a significant pick-up in inflation to 1.8% (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Higher European Inflation Equals Higher Euro Chart I-11A U.S. Inflation Pick Up Is Coming The same cannot be said for euro area inflation. Not only is the European periphery already feeling the pain caused by the euro's strength, but also we have entered the window of time where the previous tightening in euro area financial conditions vis-à-vis the U.S. puts a brake on euro area relative inflation.4 Moreover, the diffusion index of the components of the euro area core CPI index has been below 50% for four months in a row now. Historically, this has been associated with a fall in core CPI. Fourth, over the past year or so, EUR/USD has traded in line with risk assets. The euro area has benefited from EM growth improvement, which has lifted all corners of the global economy levered to the global industrial cycle. As a result, as investors become increasingly bullish on industrial metals, EM assets or momentum plays, so they have of the euro.5 However, clouds are slowly forming over the global economy, at the very least pointing to a mini-cycle downturn. For one, Chinese producer prices have rolled over, and Chinese import growth has significantly underperformed expectations in recent months, slowing to a 5% pace from a 20% pace as recently as September 2017. Essentially, industrial activity has slowed in response to a tightening in Chinese monetary conditions. This slowdown is already beginning to impact various corners of the globe: Korean and Taiwanese export growth continues to decelerate; BCA's Global LEIs Diffusion Index is well below the 50% mark, which normally precedes slowdowns in the global LEI itself; Our boom/bust and global growth indicators have slowed further - two precursors to global industrial production decelerations. Our global economic and financial A/D line, which tallies 100 pro-cyclical variables, has also rolled over sharply, another early warning sign for the global economy (Chart I-12). Finally, as we highlighted in December, EM/JPY carry trades, a canary for the global economy, have lost momentum - a signal that has normally preceded a slowdown in global industrial activity.6 All these signals only confirm the "Yellow Flags" we highlighted last October.7 In an environment where complacency is rampant and assets levered to growth are priced for perfection, this is worrisome. The euro's recent elevated correlation to such risk assets, along with the fact that the gap between European and U.S. core inflation is itself led by Chinese PPI, suggests that the euro is tactically vulnerable. Fifth, from a technical perspective speculators have never been this long the euro, which represents a significant danger as the euro is trading at a sharp premium to its short-term interest rate driver (Chart I-13). Moreover, risk-reversals for EUR/USD point to heightened susceptibility of a selloff if the bad omen on global growth and European inflation come to fruition (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Rising Risks For Global Growth Chart I-13The Euro Is Vulnerable Chart I-14Risk Reversals Point To Euro Downside This short-term picture suggests that the probability of a move in EUR/USD toward 1.15 is growing over the course of the next three to six months. Bottom Line: While the cyclical picture for the euro is bright, the short-term snapshot is much more dangerous. Not only are an increasing number of ECB officials weighing in on the impact of the euro's recent rally, but the European periphery is showing growing signs that the euro rally has indeed taken a bite. Additionally, European inflation is set to underperform U.S. inflation, and the global economic cycle could enter a short burst of disappointment. Finally, investors are not positioned for such developments, increasing the likelihood of a downward move in the euro. What To Do? Caught between a cyclically propitious backdrop and a tactically dangerous environment, EUR/USD presents a riddle for FX investors right now. The odds of a euro correction over the next three to six months are substantially greater than 50%. But as we highlighted last week, instead of taking a direct bet on EUR/USD, we recommend investors short EUR/JPY. Shorting EUR/JPY is an even cleaner way to take advantage of the cloudy weather building over the global economy.8 Moreover, in recent years, EUR/JPY has fallen when the 52-week rate-of-change of momentum trades began to weaken (Chart I-15). This highly mean-reverting indicator is currently in the 96th percentile of its distribution for the past 25 years, suggesting an imminent rollover. Additionally, EUR/JPY tends to perform well when the LIBOR-OIS spread widens. Today, the three-month FRA-OIS spread has been widening, even as the end-of-year dollar funding shortage has passed (Chart I-16). These kinds of dynamics point to a potential drying out in global liquidity, a phenomenon which historically hurts risk assets, especially when they are as frothy as they are now. This should once again hurt EUR/JPY. Chart I-15EUR/JPY And Momentum Stocks Chart I-16Funding Stresses Point To A Fall In EUR/JPY Thus, shorting EUR/JPY is our highest conviction trade for the next six months or so. If, as we foresee, EUR/USD weakens during the first half of 2018, we will look to buy this pair. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets" dated February 26, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 We do not include real GDP in the models because since wealth is affected by GDP, they are two co-integrated variables, which creates strong multi-collinearity in the regressions. Of the two variables, real wealth was the stronger explanatory variable. 3 While the focus of this report is on the euro, the relationship between relative excess money supply and currency performances works across many exchange rates. We will develop this theme over the coming weeks. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets" dated February 26, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Euro: Risk On Or Risk Off" dated November 17, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter" dated January 5, 2018 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Best Of Possible Worlds?" dated October 6, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!" dated January 12, 2018 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Data out of the U.S. was strong this week: Industrial production increased by 0.9% on a monthly pace; Capacity utilization increased to 77.9% from 77.2%; Continuing jobless claims increased to 1.952 million from 1.876 million, beating expectations of 1.9 million; Initial jobless claims however decreased to 220K from 261K, beating expectations of 250K. We continue to expect the Fed to hike more than is priced by the market. A tightening labor market will eventually feed inflationary pressures, causing upward pressure on the dollar. Report Links: A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - January 5, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was decent: German CPI came in unchanged and at expectations, at 1.6%; European headline and core CPI also remained unchanged and at consensus, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively. However, the euro seems to be losing momentum his week. Comments by ECB board members such as Ewald Nowotny, Vitor Constâncio, and Francois Villeroy, all pointed to issues with the euro's sharp rise, and how they "don't reflect changes in fundamentals". Additionally, relapsing inflation data in the peripheries shows that the strength in the euro is beginning to cause strains and may even negatively affect the ECB's mandate. Report Links: The Unstoppable Euro - January 19, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - January 5, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Domestic corporate goods year on year inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 3.1%. It also decreased substantially from November. Moreover, the Eco Watchers Survey for current conditions underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.9. It also decreased from the November reading. However, machinery orders yearly growth outperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 4.1%. USD/JPY is relatively flat from last week. Overall we expect upside to the yen to be limited against the U.S. dollar, given that bond yields are set to go up in the U.S. That being said, the yen has upside against the euro, as financial conditions have eased significantly in Japan relatively to the euro area. This should cause rate expectations in Japan to improve relative to those of Europe's, pushing EUR/JPY lower. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets - December 8, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: The DCLG House Price Index yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 5.1%. However, core consumer price inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.5%. It also decreased from the 2.7% reading of November. Moreover, headline inflation came in line with expectations at 3%. This also marks the first decrease in inflation in the U.K. since July 2017. Lifted by the USD's weakness, cable has now reached the pre-Brexit low 1.38 hit in February 2016. However, GBP has been experiencing a downtrend versus the euro since last September Overall, we continue to be skeptical of the ability of the BoE to raise interest rates meaningfully. Thus, we would fade any further rally from GBP/USD. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was strong this week: Home loans grew at a 2.1% annual pace in November, higher than the expected -0.2%; Employment grew by 34.7K, beating expectations of 9K. The part-time component increased by 19.5K, while the full-time component grew by 15.1K; The participation rate increased to 65.7% from 65.5%; Unemployment rate increased to 5.5% from 5.4%. Foreign exchange traders lifted the AUD further this week. While the headline employment data remains stellar, the heavy concentration part-time job creation means that overall labor utilization measures is staying low. This will cap wage and inflationary pressures, especially as the AUD is once again expensive, further exacerbating deflationary pressures. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been negative: The month-on-month growth of food prices declined from -0.4% to -0.8%. Moreover, Electronic Card retail sales yearly growth slowed from 4.3% to 3.3%. Finally the ANZ Commodity Price Index year on year growth declined from -0.9% to -2.2%. The New Zealand Dollar has surges by almost 3% year to data against the U.S. dollar. This has been largely due to the depreciation of the greenback itself, as global growth continues to beat forecast. On a short term basis we are positive on the NZD relative to the AUD, as Chinese tightening should weigh more on Australia than New Zealand. However, the new populist government in New Zealand worsens the outlook of the kiwi on a long term basis. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Movements in the petrocurrency were muted following the 'dovish hike' by the Bank of Canada. Numerous factors were highlighted to justify the rate hike to 1.25%, such as: strong employment growth; higher wages; robust consumption; and exceptional GDP growth in 2017. While the Bank's Business Outlook Survey suggests the labor market is tightening due to labor shortages, the BoC underplayed this factor, pointing to much more muted overall labor utilization metrics. The BoC also noted the expected decline in the contribution of housing and consumption to growth this year due to higher mortgage and borrowing rates. While the economy is firing on all fronts, the spread between the West Canada Select and West Texas Intermediate oil prices continues to widen due to a lack of pipeline capacity to ship the oil out of Canada. According to the Bank, these bottlenecks should be temporary, which means that the CAD could catch up to oil later. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 On Tuesday, Thomas Jordan, the president of the SNB once again reiterated that the franc is still "highly valued", and thus interest rates need to stay low so as to prevent the franc from appreciating. Moreover, he emphasized that while expansionary monetary policy was necessary, it was important to not wait too long to normalize rates. Overall, we believe that the SNB will want to see sustained inflation at relatively high levels to justify an exit from their radical monetary policy. In the meantime the Swiss Central bank will stay accommodative, and thus, EUR/CHF is likely to have limited downside. If the mini down cycle takes hold of the global economy, this would temporarily weigh on EUR/CHF. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The krone continued to appreciate this week, and is now UP 3.3% year-to-date. The krone has been helped mostly by the surge in oil prices and by the fall in the dollar. Overall, we are bullish on this cross against the CAD, as there are 60 basis points of hiked priced in the Canadian curve, even after this week's hike. In the meantime, there are only 21 basis points in the Norwegian curve. We believe this spread is too high, and thus, that the krone should appreciate against the Canadian dollar. Moreover, further downside in EUR/NOK is limited, given that near 70 dollars, there is not much room for oil prices to go up. Thus, we are closing our EUR/NOK trade with a 3.40% gain but keep our long NOK/SEK call in place. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 In a recent speech in Uppsala, Sweden, Deputy Governor Henry Ohlsson reminded the audience of his view from the December meeting that it would have reasonable to hike rates in "early 2018". He pointed to Sweden's robust economic performance, highlighting population growth, migration into cities, and higher real wages. Inflation has also been on target since mid-2017. This assessment is in line with our view of the economy, however Governor Ingves consistently supported a strong dovish tone which undermined our view. Now that the ECB has begun tapering, the consensus within the Riksbank seems to also be shifting. Falling house prices need to be monitored closely, especially when one keeps in mind Governor Ingves dovish inclinations. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmarks. Feature Several highly-watched Chinese data releases are being published as we go to press, including Q4 GDP growth, and December retail sales, industrial production, and fixed asset investment. We are inclined to agree with Bloomberg's consensus expectations that these series will come in flat-to-modestly down, given our base case view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown. While we cannot rule out the potential for significantly positive surprises from this data, our November 30 Special Report noted in detail that these types of activity indicators tend to lag (or are not correlated with) the Li Keqiang index, which we have shown continues to act as an important predictor of the growth in investable EPS and nominal import growth.1 As such, the series in today's release do not rank highly on our list of important data to watch over the coming 6-12 months. Instead, we remain focused on the components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, as well as the evolution of the relationship between the Li Keqiang index and the growth in earnings and imports. December: A Bad Month For Money & Trade Chart 1A Non-Trivial Deceleration##br## In Money Growth Among the December data released in the first half of this month, the most important series in our view have been the Caixin Manufacturing PMI, imports/exports, and the money supply. The PMI was a bright spot; after having decelerated since August, the index unexpectedly increased from 50.8 in November to 51.5 in December. The Caixin Services PMI also surprised to the upside. The year-over-year (YoY) growth rate of nominal imports, however, fell sharply in December, and significantly missed expectations. In addition, supply of money (measured either as M2 or BCA-defined M3) also fell on a YoY basis, with the 3-month annualized rate of change declining meaningfully (Chart 1). Given that M2 and M3 are components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. Several points are worth considering: China's trade data is highly volatile, and a smoothed version of nominal import growth is behaving exactly as the Li Keqiang index suggests that it should (Chart 2). In addition, while import growth significantly missed the street's expectations, negative surprises of this magnitude have frequently occurred in the past (Chart 3). Chart 2Despite A Weak December, ##br##Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Chart 3Negative Import Surprises ##br##Are Fairly Common Money supply measures form just one-third of our Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and the other factors aren't nearly as negative as these measures imply. Chart 4 illustrates that the indicator would be considerably higher if M2 and M3 were excluded, and that the overall indicator is not falling at a sharp or aggressive pace. Even though we did not include it in our composite indicator, we noted in our November 30 Special Report that the manufacturing PMI is an important signal for the Chinese economy, so it is encouraging that it ticked higher. While 51.5 may not seem like an elevated reading when compared with developed economies, it ranks in the 91st percentile of the data since mid-2011. Export growth remained buoyant, which will provide the industrial sector with some reflationary offset. We noted in a previous report that strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth over the coming year,2 but a regression-based approach to modelling Chinese export growth suggests that it may stay strong if leading indicators of global economic activity remain robust (Chart 5). Chart 4Severely Weak Money Measures ##br##Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Chart 5Chinese Export Growth ##br##May Stay Strong Bottom Line: December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Some Approaches To Gauging The Stance Of Chinese Monetary Policy While we do not regard December's economic data as a deviation from our base case view, that view does acknowledge that a gradual, controlled slowdown is occurring. There are two drivers of this ongoing economic slowdown. The first is the past imposition of "supply side" constraints on some industrial sectors, which have been part of the government's efforts to cut excess capacity and reduce pollution. For example, we noted in our October 5 Special Report that coal, base metals and cement producers have chronically underperformed in recent years, and have also hurt the overall performance of the industrial sector.3 Similarly, capital spending in the mining sector, historically highly sensitive to moves in global metals prices, have continued to contract, despite the sharp increase in metals prices since 2016 (Chart 6). The more obvious catalyst for a slowdown in the economy is, however, the tightening in monetary policy that began in late-2016. We have strongly emphasized the importance of monetary conditions in our approach to tracking the end of China's mini-cycle, and part of the tightening in these conditions can be linked to the end of material RMB depreciation. But a variety of interest rates have also increased substantially over the past year, which has been worrying to some investors. These concerns have been magnified recently by quite a bit of hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC, including an ultimately retracted statement from a leading PBOC researcher last week that stronger economic conditions have created enough room for a hike in the benchmark one-year lending rate. The current environment naturally raises the question of what would constitute tight policy in China. Chart 7 presents two conventional methods of answering this question, both of which aim to compare the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate to a fair, neutral, or equilibrium level. The first method uses a Taylor Rule approach with the IMF's output gap, headline consumer price inflation, and the IMF's assumptions of a 6% nominal equilibrium interest rate and a 3% headline inflation target.4 The second method simply compares the benchmark lending rate to that prescribed by our BCA China Interest Rate Model, which is a proprietary indicator based on China's growth momentum relative to its recent average, Chinese inflation, U.S. interest rates, and the CNY/USD exchange rate. Chart 6Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On ##br##Some Sectors Chart 7Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark##br## Lending Rate Should Rise... At first blush, Chart 7 seems to imply that a significant increase in the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate is warranted. But these approaches ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year, in some cases materially. A comprehensive understanding of the framework and mechanics of China's new monetary policy era is still elusive to many investors, and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. But for now, it is important to note that the benchmark lending rate merely acts as a reference point for Chinese banks when determining the actual interest rate charged on new loans. Chart 8 highlights that the percentage of loans issued above the benchmark rate correlates strongly with, and is led by, the 3-month interbank lending rate. Given the significant increase in 3-month SHIBOR over the past year, it is not surprising that China's weighted average lending rate has recently been increasing, even though the benchmark rate has remained constant. The rise in the average lending rate has so far been moderate, with our Q4 estimate showing only a 35% cumulative retracement of the 180bps decline that occurred from 2014 - 2016. But Chart 9 illustrates what would likely occur to the average lending rate if the PBOC were to hike the benchmark rate by 50bps over the coming year, based on two different scenarios: 1) an unchanged 3-month SHIBOR rate, and 2) a 50bps rise in 3-month SHIBOR (i.e. a parallel shift with the benchmark rate). The chart makes it clear that such a move would push average lending rates above the midpoint of the 2014-2016 range, which from our perspective is a reasonable estimate of the threshold between easy and tight monetary policy. Chart 8...But This Ignores The Recent Rise##br## In Market-Based Interest Rates Chart 9Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate ##br##Will Create Tight Policy A rise into tight monetary policy territory would be exacerbated even further if the 3-month SHIBOR rate rose disproportionately to any increase in the benchmark rate, which is not a trivial risk given the extent of their rise since late-2016. In short, given that China's economy is already slowing, this analysis underscores that any meaningful increases to the benchmark rate are likely unwarranted, and would be greeted negatively by global investors were they to occur. Bottom Line: Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Monetary Policy And Investment Strategy We presented a "decision tree" for Chinese stocks in our January 4 Weekly Report,5 and noted that signs of significant further tightening of monetary policy should be met with a downgrade bias towards Chinese equities. We argued that the "bark" of monetary authorities would be worse than their "bite" over the coming several months, given that growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Recent market performance suggests that global investors agree with our assessment that the PBOC will refrain from any meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate, and that any further rise in the average lending rate will be modest. Chart 10 shows that while the performance of Chinese investable ex-tech stocks versus global ex-tech did challenge its 200-day moving average in mid-December, the selloff has been completely reversed over the past month. In addition, Chart 11 shows that bottom-up 12-month forward EPS growth expectations remain solid and net earnings revisions remain close to a seven-year high, suggesting that there is no imminent fundamental basis for a major decline in Chinese investable equity prices. Chart 10Investors Aren't Worried##br## By The Specter Of Tight Policy Chart 11There Is Fundamental Support ##br##For Chinese Stocks Accordingly, while further monetary policy tightening remains a risk to be monitored over the course of the year, our "decision tree" framework continues to suggest that investors should be overweight Chinese stocks. We regard this as a recommendation to be cautiously bullish, a stance that we will be continually evaluating over the course of the year as more information about the risk factors that we have identified presents itself. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmark. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 IMF Country Report No. 17/247, People's Republic of China : 2017 Article IV Consultation, August 8, 2017. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The "Decision Tree" For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in U.S. bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & U.S. Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Feature Chart of the WeekHigher Yields, Driven By Inflation There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart of the Week). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016, its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal U.S. 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's U.S. CPI report provided further evidence that U.S. core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning##BR##For Oil And Bonds Chart 5Net Speculative Positions &##BR##10-Year Treasury Yield (2010 - Present) Chart 6Net Speculative Positions &##BR##WTI Oil Price (2010 - Present) Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And U.S. Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields. The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection. Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When##BR##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to ease policy is constrained while its ability to tighten is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation: Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation & Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year. Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal U.S. bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Too Soon To Expect A Hike Chart 11Australia: A Solid Rebound In Growth... Over the last quarter much of the economic data from Australia have improved. Real GDP growth rebounded sharply to 2.8% YoY in Q3 from 1.9% the previous quarter (Chart 11). Iron ore prices have been rising since mid-October. Employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate is well below its estimated natural level. This begs the question - with so much going right is it time for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to lift rates? Our answer is an emphatic "no." First, most data improvements have been relatively minor and the overall economic picture remains mixed. As we mentioned in our recent Special Report,2 the RBA is stuck between conflicting forces. Booming house prices and rising household indebtedness on the one hand, and an economy still working off excess capacity on the other. Nevertheless, our expectation is that the RBA will allow the economy to recover further for the following reasons: Consumer health is fragile. Policymakers left cash rates unchanged at the last monetary policy meeting in December, and Governor Philip Lowe expressed concerns about household consumption. Consumption is a significant driver of economic growth and the combination of declining savings, elevated debt levels and weak income growth is worrisome (Chart 12). Since then, real income growth has dipped back into positive territory, but only barely so. Meanwhile, house prices are still surging, despite macro-prudential measures aimed at tightening lending standards, thereby supporting consumer spending through the wealth effect. Given an extreme household debt to income ratio, consumption would be very vulnerable if the RBA were to curb house price gains by raising rates. Labors markets have plenty of slack. The unemployment rate has fallen to a four year low and other labor market statistics show a broad-based improvement over the last quarter. However, the unemployment rate is still significantly higher than it was in the previous cycle and other improvements in the labor market have also occurred from extremely weak levels. In 2017Q1, the underemployment rate and part-time workers as a percentage of total workers both reached all-time highs. Those numbers have dipped slightly in Q3, with underemployment falling to 8.3% and part-time workers as a percentage of total declining to 31.7%, but those elevated levels suggest there still needs to be significant improvement before spare capacity is worked off and real wage growth starts to move higher (Chart 13). Chart 12...But Consumers Can't Afford A Rate Hike Chart 13Still Plenty Of Slack In Australian Labor Markets Inflation is still too low. Headline and core inflation readings came in at 1.8% and 1.9% respectively in Q3 (Chart 14). While headline slowed, core inflation recovered over the last quarter. Tradeable goods inflation collapsed into negative territory at -0.9%, as a result of currency strength and increased competition among retailers. Going forward, we expect consumer price growth to be muted given the lack of inflationary pressures. The output gap is wide, despite rebounding growth, and the IMF forecasts that it will be years before the Australian economy reaches capacity. The trade-weighted Aussie dollar index has risen almost 5% since it bottomed in early December, while the AUD/USD has broken above its 40-week moving average. Continued currency strength would exert even further deflationary pressure. As stated above, the labor market also requires significant improvement to work off excess capacity. All of these factors caused the RBA to dial back its inflation forecast in the November statement. It now expects that inflation will remain quite flat for the next two years, only touching the lower-end of its 2%-3% target range at the end of 2019. Consequently, inflation will not be forcing the RBA's hand in the foreseeable future. One of our key themes for 2018 is that global growth will be less synchronized. Central banks will therefore employ diverging monetary policies, presenting cross-country bond market investment opportunities. As such, we recently shifted to a slight overweight position in Australian debt within our model portfolio, arguing that it would outperform global government bond benchmarks during a year expected to be driven by Fed tightening and ECB/BoJ tapering concerns. Historically, relative yield moves have closely tracked relative shifts in monetary policy (Chart 15). In the U.S., above-trend growth, a tight labor market and the continued recovery in inflation will force the Fed to become more aggressive. If the RBA stays inactive as we expect, then this gap should continue to move in favor of Australian debt. Additionally, there is still a modest yield pickup in Australian debt relative to the global index and as we expect global bond yields to rise, low-beta Australian government bonds should offer considerable protection. Chart 14Australia: Lacking Inflationary Pressures Chart 15Australian Relative Yields Track Relative Policy This also leads us to continue holding our tactical Long Dec 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures trade from last October. We initially entered into this trade as a more focused way of expressing that the RBA will stay on hold. The trade is currently 6 bps in the money and with markets still pricing about 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, there is plenty of room for further profit as market expectations are revised down. Bottom Line: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place", dated July 25, 2017, 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 Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of yields. Fed: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Feature There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart 1). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016 its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). Chart 1Higher Yields, Driven By Inflation Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's CPI report provided further evidence that core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning For Oil And Bonds However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 5Net Speculative Positions & 10-Year Treasury Yield Chart 6Net Speculative Positions & WTI Oil Price Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When ##br##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to cut rates is constrained by the zero-bound while its ability to lift rates is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation And Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year (see section titled "The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change" below). Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of bond yields. The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change? As was alluded to in the prior section, the biggest potential change for bond markets in 2018 would be if the Fed changed its monetary policy framework to one that tolerated higher levels of inflation. For example, let's imagine that the Fed suddenly lifted its inflation target from 2% to 3%. This would likewise shift the upper-bound range for long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to approximately 3.4% to 3.5%. It would mean that nominal bond yields have further upside over the course of the cycle, and also that oil and commodity prices would play an important role in bond markets for much longer. It would also lengthen the period where spread product can outperform Treasuries since the Fed would not be so quick to choke off the recovery. We still think it is unlikely that such a change will be implemented this year, but recent weeks have seen a marked increase in the number of Fed policymakers either advocating for a different policy framework or saying that the Fed should start researching alternative frameworks. What's crucial to remember is that the reason policymakers are unsatisfied with the current 2% inflation target is that it brings the zero-lower bound on interest rates into play too often. So any potential change in policy framework would be to one that tolerates higher inflation rates. Bernanke's Idea Chart 11The Implications Of A Price Level Target One potential new policy approach was put forward by ex-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a recent blog post.2 Bernanke made the case for "Temporary Price Level Targeting", a policy where the Fed continues to use a 2% inflation target when the fed funds rate is sufficiently far from zero, but then switches to a price-level target when the fed funds rate is close to the zero bound. In his own words, the strategy would be communicated as follows: The Committee therefore agrees that, in future situations in which the funds rate is at or near zero, a necessary condition for raising the funds rate will be that average inflation since the date at which the federal funds rate first hit zero be at least 2 percent. Chart 11 provides an illustration of this example. Under the current framework the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation and forecasts that it will achieve this target sometime in 2019. In Bernanke's proposed framework the Fed would not target 2% inflation, but rather a price level that is consistent with 2% trend growth in prices since the zero-lower bound was hit in December 2008. In order to achieve this goal by the end of 2019 the Fed would need to tolerate a significant overshoot of inflation during the next two years (bottom panel). Who's On Board? The Appendix to this report is a list of all Fed Governors and Regional Fed Presidents. It also shows our own assessment of each committee member's policy bias. We noted from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that 6 FOMC participants expect three rate hikes in 2018, 6 expect fewer than three rate hikes and 4 expect more than three hikes. From recent speeches we attempted to discern which member owns which forecast and then we attributed a "dovish" policy bias to those with a forecast for fewer than three hikes, a "neutral" bias to those expecting three hikes, and a "hawkish" bias to those expecting more than three hikes. We also show which FOMC participants are voters in 2018, although we do not think that distinction carries much practical importance. The Committee tends to arrive at decisions by consensus anyways, and all participants voice their opinions at every meeting whether or not it is their turn to vote. But it is the "notes" column of the Appendix that is most striking. There we highlighted all the FOMC participants who have recently made comments regarding the exploration of alternative policy frameworks. A general consensus seems to be forming that alternative frameworks should be studied this year, and a few policymakers (San Francisco Fed President John Williams, in particular) have strongly made the case that the Fed should switch to some sort of price level targeting regime. The Appendix also identifies the biggest source of uncertainty for the Fed this year. Namely that there are four vacant Governor positions that need to be filled. The New York Fed will also need a new President when William Dudley retires later this year. Who is nominated to fill those vacant positions will go a long way toward determining how aggressively the Fed pursues alternative policy frameworks. Bottom Line: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ Appendix Table 2Composition Of The FOMC Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The consensus expects a 12% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016, and 14% for 2018. The repercussions of the tax bill on operating conditions in 2018 will be a focus for corporate management teams and investors when discussing Q4 2017 results. The December readings on retail sales and CPI bolster the Fed's case for a rate hike in March. We expect a smooth transition in February for incoming FOMC Chair Powell, which will ensure a gradual normalization of monetary policy. However, Federal Reserve Board (FRB) vacancies, hawk/dove shifts and dissents are concerns. Feature U.S. equities continued their winning streak last week, as investors marked up expectations for both global growth and 2018 S&P 500 profits. The next section of this report offers a preview of the Q4 2017 earning season. There was even a hint of inflation in the air, as December's core CPI rose a stronger than expected 1.8% year-over-year. The overflow of Fed speakers did little to change the market's view that the next rate hike will occur at the March meeting. We discuss the composition of the FOMC in the final section of this week's report. The 10-year Treasury yield moved nearly 10 bps higher, ending the week at 2.56%. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategists put the 10-year fair value at 2.94%.1 Moreover, the 2-year Treasury yield touched 2% last Friday for the first time since 2008. S&P 500 Earnings: Q4 2017 The consensus expects a 12% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016, and 15% for 2018. Energy, materials and technology shares will lead the way in earnings growth, while telecom and real estate earnings will languish. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects Q4 2017 EPS to rise by 10% year-over-year. The upbeat profit picture for the past quarter and 2018 reflects the rebound in oil prices, which are expected to boost energy sector EPS by an impressive 138% in Q4 (Chart 1). Energy-related capex and overall S&P 500 earnings are closely linked (Chart 1, panel 2). An improving global growth environment and still muted labor costs continued to drive a counter-cyclical rally in profit margins in Q4 and in early 2018. Moreover, the direct effect of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted late last year, will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. Hurricane reconstruction spending and a likely congressional agreement to raise the cap on federal discretionary spending could add another 0.2 points to the growth figure this year. However, much depends on the ability of tax changes and immediate capital expensing to further lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. The repercussions of the tax bill on operating conditions in 2018 will be a focus for corporate management teams and investors when discussing Q4 2017 results. Specifically, corporations' use of cash via the benefit of lower tax rates and repatriating cash from overseas will be at the forefront. Chart 2 shows that through Q3 2017, share buybacks and dividends ran slightly ahead of prior cycles, while capex was about average. BCA will continue to monitor this mix. Improving economic conditions in Europe and the emerging markets (EM), the U.S. dollar, the sustainability of margins, and the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, all will likely be closely vetted during Q&A conference calls. Chart 1S&P 500 Sensitive To Oil Prices##BR##And Oil Driven Capex Chart 2Comparison Of Corporate Outlays##BR##Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Analysts may also fix their attention on rising interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. On January 12 the 10-year Treasury yield hit its highest point since March, reaching 2.56%. Moreover, in Q4 2017 the 10-year yield was 16 bps above Q3 2017 and 26 above Q4 2016. BCA expects the 2/10 yield curve to steepen in the next six months before flattening in the final half of the year. The curve and rising rates provide a boost to the financial sector of the S&P 500. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy team remains overweight the Financials sector since May 2017.2 As always, guidance from corporate leaders on trends in Q1 2018 and beyond are more important than the actual Q4 results (Chart 3). Investors should guard against management over-optimism because earnings growth forecasts very often move lower over time. In Q4, as in the first three quarters of 2017, firms with elevated overseas sales should benefit from the improved growth profile in Europe, Japan and the EM. Chart 4 shows that the lofty ISM figures provide a favorable backdrop for earnings and sales in 2018. Moreover, Chart 5 indicates that industrial production (IP), a proxy for S&P 500 sales, is poised to advance in 2018 and lift corporate profits. Global GDP growth projections for this year and next have steadily perked up, in sharp contrast with prior years when forecasters relentlessly lowered GDP estimates (Chart 6). Chart 32018 Estimates Turned Higher After Tax Law Passed; '19 Likely To Move Lower Chart 4Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales In addition, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service notes3 that following a trough in 2015, the number of positive revenue revisions has steadily outpaced the number of positive earnings revisions, despite actual earnings growth vastly outpacing revenue growth. One plausible reason for the recent very positive revenue revisions is that firms are shifting some profits from 2017 into 2018 to capture the maximum benefit from tax reform. Chart 5ISM Components Suggest IP##BR##Poised To Accelerate Chart 6Global Growth Estimates##BR##Still Accelerating The U.S. dollar, which has been only a small drag on EPS in recent quarters, should become a modest plus in Q4; the dollar is down by 3% versus a year ago against a broad basket of currencies. Moreover, in the most recent Beige Book (November 29), mentions of a "strong dollar" declined by 8 compared with a year ago. This indicates that the stronger currency has faded as a primary concern of managements in recent months (Chart 7). Nonetheless, BCA's view is that the dollar will advance by 5% in the next 12 months. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. Another increase in the dollar, on its own, should not provide a substantial headwind for the stock market. Indeed, the dollar would only climb in the context of robust U.S. economic growth and an expanding corporate top line. Legislative progress on an infrastructure package in the U.S. and an improvement in U.S. business capital spending would boost the greenback's prospects. The effects of this past fall's major hurricanes on Q4 results will be muted for the S&P 500 and most sectors. Several weather-sensitive industries (insurance, airlines, chemicals, refining, leisure, etc.) saw significant disruptions to their Q3 results. These industries will probably see some snapback in their Q4 results. Investors are skeptical that margins can advance in Q4 2017 for the sixth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters, but the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate. The bottom line is that we expect the earnings backdrop will be supportive of equity prices in 2017Q4 and early in 2018. Beyond that, EPS growth will begin to decelerate in the second half of 2018 and will become more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 8). Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. Chart 7The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Factor In Q4 Earnings Season Chart 8Strong S&P Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Fed Leadership Transition: Smooth Sailing Ahead? Chart 9December's CPI Data Will Be Met##BR##With A Sigh Of Relief From The Fed Following a disappointing 0.1% m/m increase in November, core CPI posted a 0.3% m/m rebound in December (Chart 9). While welcomed news, there are a few counterpoints to note. First, the gain was concentrated in two subcomponents: housing and medical care. Shelter accounts for over 40% of core CPI and our models are pointing to a moderation ahead. Second, core services (ex-shelter and medical care) inflation remains anemic at sub-2% and core goods prices are still deflating. Third, annual core inflation is running at just 1.8%. Core CPI inflation of 2.4-2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE deflator. December's retail sales report added to the upbeat tone of the economy as 2018 ended. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow reading for Q4 2017 stood at 3.3% on January 12, up from 2.7% on January 5. U.S. inflation should gradually revert to target by year-end. In U.S. fixed income portfolios, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Rising inflation breakevens will also exert a steeping bias to the yield curve. The bounce in core CPI is certainly encouraging, but the Fed needs to see further firm prints to gain greater confidence that inflation is indeed heading back to target. With two more CPI reports ahead of the March FOMC meeting, the Fed may have the evidence it needs by then to hike rates again. We expect a smooth transition in February for incoming FOMC Chair Powell, which will ensure a gradual normalization of monetary policy. Powell will not want to create waves as the FOMC nudges the Fed funds rate closer to its projected terminal point of 2.75%.4 There are several reasons for our unequivocal view that there will be a smooth transition in FOMC leadership: Fed Chair Precedents: In previous FOMC leadership transitions, the monetary policy path remained continuous, on average about 13 months, before changing direction (Chart 10). For example, former Chair Bernanke continued to hike rates four more times after Greenspan retired (February 2006), with the tightening cycle peaking in June 2006. Yellen maintained a steady zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) for almost two years following the departure of Bernanke in early 2014. Greenspan retained the tightening policy path initiated by Volcker, although it was temporarily interrupted to avert a credit crunch after the 1987 stock market crash. Thereafter, Chair Greenspan resumed hiking rates for a little more than one year. Chair Powell, known as a conforming centrist, will certainly follow the lead of his predecessors. U.S. monetary policy will remain unchanged from former Chair Yellen, unless there is an unforeseen shock to global growth or a sharp deviation from the expected path for inflation. Chart 10Fed Chair Precedents: Continuous Monetary Policy Path FOMC Composition Changes: Each year ushers in a different set of voters on the FOMC linked to the rotation of regional FRB presidents. More uncertainty has been created this year with the departures of several regional presidents and vacancies on the Board of Governors. The composition of voting FOMC members will be slightly more hawkish for 2018 relative to 2017 (Chart 11). The continuity and efficacy of monetary policy will be further promoted as the path for more rate hikes (at least two) are already discounted by forward markets and three more rate increases are expected in 2018. FRB Minneapolis President Kashkari and FRB Chicago President Evans depart this year as non-voting members. Kashkari is considered the most dovish; he will return as a voter in 2020 while Evans will come back in 2019. Chart 11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In contrast, the arrival of FRB Presidents Mester (Cleveland), Williams (San Francisco) and Barkin (Richmond) tip the scale somewhat towards tighter policy. Most importantly, FRB's New York Dudley, a centrist, will leave about five months after Yellen's term expires next month. Board Governor Lael Brainard, an Obama-era appointee, will remain as the most dovish voter of the two existing doves in the mix. The FOMC's hawkish bias will no longer be a matter of perception but rather a matter of reality. The nomination of Marvin Goodfriend by President Trump to the Fed's Board should move matters towards neutrality (Goodfriend is not a definite hawk as he also cautious about fighting deflation) and ensure that the Fed operates with at least four governors in 2018. Goodfriend's successful confirmation would leave only three Board vacancies: the Vice-Chair and two governors. On the margin, the voting members of the FOMC skew more hawkish in 2018, but history suggests that new Fed Chairs favor gradual transitions over sudden shifts in policy. FRB Vacancies: The three outstanding Board vacancies should not prevent the smooth transition of leadership from Yellen to Powell next month. In recent years, the duration of FRB vacancies has been longer when compared with prior years. According to a recent report by the Bipartisan Policy Center,5 lengthy vacancies are most evident at the Fed among 13 independent financial regulatory agencies. From 1986 to the present, the 67% vacancy rate at the Fed was more than triple the percentage of 21% from 1947 to 1986 (Chart 12). The Center also calculated that since January 1, 2000, there has been at least one Federal Reserve Board vacancy more than 80% of the time, emphasizing that a "full Fed Board is as rare as a vacancy used to be." While the FOMC had a full Board most of the time (79%) from 1947 to 1986, in the past 30 years this occurred only one-third of the time (33%) (Chart 13). Therefore, even the structural shift in the FOMC's composition did not deter or unhinge the lift-off from a zero interest-rate policy in December 2015 (the first rate hike since June 2006) and the eventual debut of the Fed's balance sheet normalization last September. The implication for investors is that the FOMC has been operating in an era of a higher vacancy rate for some time, and therefore used to operating that way, and the vacancies should not play a major role in the Fed's policy path this year or in the transition from Yellen to Powell. Chart 12Vacancies Are Now The Norm Chart 13More Than One Vacancy Is Not Uncommon Too FOMC Dissents: Even with less than a full slate of governors on the Fed's Board, there has not been governor dissent since 2005 (Chart 14) We expect a somewhat similar frequency of dissents as in previous cycles. In 2017, all four dissents were registered by regional Fed presidents. Chair Yellen never expressed discord when she was a member of the Board of Governors nor when she was President of the FRB San Francisco. Notably, incoming Chair Powell has not dissented since joining the Board in 2012. Moreover, any opposition declared by Board members was usually for easier policy (78% for easier policy and 28% for tighter policy). For example, in the fall of 2015, prior to the first rate hike of the cycle, two dovish Fed governors opposed Chair Yellen. Governors Brainard and Tarullo wanted to delay boosting rates into 2016 because they believed that inflation was still too low. They contended that a "wait-and-see" approach was less risky than acting prematurely, arguing that the risks to global growth and U.S. inflation remained to the downside. One reason for this disagreement came from differing views on market-based inflation expectations. Given the tight link with oil prices, market-based, long-term inflation expectations had melted. Similarly in 2017, FRB Minneapolis President Kashkari and FRB Chicago President Evans disagreed, also citing inflation concerns. They made the case that the persistence of low inflation may not be entirely due to "transitory factors" as the FOMC Committee claimed. Chart 14Dissent By Reserve Bank Presidents And Fed Governors Bottom Line: The path of the economy and inflation, and not the composition of the Fed, will have the most significant impact on Fed policy in 2018. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of inflation and/or nominal GDP targeting as policy framework, but the Fed will remain committed to its current policies. Meanwhile, incoming Chairman Powell will probably maintain the same gradual approach towards rate increases as his predecessor, even though there is a slightly more hawkish tilt to the makeup of the FOMC's voting members. The Board's vacancies at the start of 2018 are a risk, but past vacancies have not led to drastic policy changes. BCA expects three or four rate gains this year, but it is still too early to decrease risk in portfolios. Remain overweight equities relative to bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "January Effect," published January 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Girding For A Breakout," published on May 1, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Insight "What's Up With SPX Revenue Vs. Profit Revisions," published on January 12, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20171213.pdf 5 "Financial Regulators Struggling With Longer Vacancies At The Top", Schardin, Justin and Sheth, Ashmi, Bipartisan Policy Center, March 2017.