Developed Countries

Highlights The 10-year Italian BTP yield at 4% yield marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stay underweight in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. The equity market's range-bound pattern can continue, as long as the line in the sand isn't breached. It is a good time to own a small portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. Feature Italian politics have blindsided almost everybody, us included. Few anticipated that the unlikely bedfellows 5S and Lega would try and form a 'government of change'. In March we wrote: "The Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if 5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low." Even fewer anticipated that Italy's President, Sergio Mattarella, would then scupper this government of change by vetoing the proposed Finance Minister. This has cast a new pall of uncertainty over Italian politics and Italian public support for EU rules and institutions. The 10-Year BTP Yield At 4% Marks A 'Line In The Sand' The market's response has been to fear the worst: shoot first, ask questions later. The danger is that this sets off a negative feedback loop. Higher bond yields weaken Italy's still-fragile banks; which threatens Italy's economic recovery; ahead of a possible new election, this increases the support for parties and policies that push back against EU rules; which further lifts bond yields; and then in a vicious circle until the fear of the worst becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... Chart of the WeekItalian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% The Italian BTP versus German bund yield spread is effectively a fear gauge for Italy's future in the euro (Chart I-2). As these fears increase, and Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Chart I-2The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear ##br## Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro As a rule of thumb, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4%.1 Hence, the 10-year BTP yield at 4% marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse (Chart of the Week). To short-circuit the negative feedback loop, the financial markets would need to sense a discernible shift in Italian support for its populist parties; or an explicit de-escalation in the populist pushback against the EU. The question is: could this happen quickly enough? Global Growth Is In A Mini-Downswing The market's concerns about Italy come at a time when global growth has in any case been losing momentum. This is one development that did not blindside us, and has unfolded exactly as predicted. In January we wrote: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting." The theory underlying these mini-cycles is an economic model called the Cobweb Theorem.2 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a delay. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a delay. The delay occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months, and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase, and exactly as predicted in January, the majority of economically sensitive sectors have underperformed. The glaring anomaly is oil, whose supply-side dynamics have dominated price action (Chart I-5). Given oil's major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and on central bank reaction functions, the global bond yield has also disconnected from the mini-cycle - until now. Chart I-5Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Mini-downswings last six to eight months and the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. So one concern is that the apparent disconnect between decelerating global activity and slow-to-react bond yields could extend the current mini-downswing phase beyond the summer. How To Invest Right Now From an equity market perspective, the relative performance of the classically cyclical sectors - banks, basic materials and industrials - very closely tracks the phases of the global credit impulse mini-cycle (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). For example, in all five of the last five mini-downswings, banks have underperformed healthcare, and we are seeing exactly the same in the current mini-cycle. Chart I-6In A Mini-Downswing##br## Banks Underperform Chart I-7In A Mini-Downswing ##br##Basic Materials Underperform For the next few months at least, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. This strategy has worked extremely well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it should continue to do so. Sector strategy necessarily impacts stock market allocation. Our core philosophy of investment reductionism teaches us that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) skews swamp any effect that comes from the domestic economy. The defining skew for Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX is their large overweighting to banks (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Irrespective of the political uncertainties, our sector allocation establishes our near-term caution on these two markets. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. Chart I-8Italy's MIB = Long Banks Chart I-9Spain's IBEX = Long Banks For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the global economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Hence, it is a good time to own a portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. Regarding currencies, the recent developments in Italy have hurt our 50:50 combined long position in EUR/USD and SEK/USD; but this has been countered by gains in our short position in EUR/JPY. We have no tactical conviction on any of these crosses, but we will maintain this medium term currency portfolio unless the Italian 10-year BTP yield breaches the 4% line in the sand. Finally, the hardest call to make is on the direction of equity market. This is because a mini-downswing in global growth creates a headwind to earnings expectations; conversely, if bond yields are capped, this will provide some support to equity market valuations. On balance, this suggests that the year-to-date pattern of a range-bound equity market is set to continue. The caveat is that if Italy's line in the sand is breached, it would warrant a substantial de-risking. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. This week, we note that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Polish zloty / U.S. dollar (or inverse) is approaching its lower limit. Go long PLN/USD with a profit target of 3.5% and symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Bank Credit Analyst

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

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. 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

Special Report

Highlights Trade war between China and U.S. is back on; President Trump is politically constrained from making a quick deal with China; Italian uncertainty will last through the summer and beyond; But bond market will eventually price profligacy over Euro Area exit, which favors bear steepening; A new election in Spain is market positive, there are no Euroskeptics in Iberia; Our tactical bearish view is playing out, stay long DXY and expect more summer volatility. Feature Geopolitical risks are rising across the board. This supports our tactically bearish view, elucidated in April.1 In this Client Note, we review our views on trade wars, Italy, and Spain. Is The U.S.-China Trade War Back On? Most relevant for global assets is that the first official salvo of the trade war between China and the U.S. has been fired: the White House announced, on May 29, tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports as well as yet-to-be-specified restrictions on Chinese investments in the U.S. and U.S. exports to China.2 We have long raised the alarm on U.S.-China relations, but President Trump threw us a curve-ball last week when Chinese and American negotiators issued a joint statement meant to soothe trade tensions. We responded that "we do not expect the truce to last long."3 Apparently it lasted merely eight days. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. Many of our clients have responded to our bearish view on Sino-American relations by suggesting that Beijing will simply offer to buy more "beef and Boeings," and that Trump will take the deal in order to declare a "quick win." The last ten days should put this view to rest. China did offer to buy more beef explicitly - with the offer of more Boeings also rumored - and yet President Trump rejected the deal. Why? Our suspicion is that President Trump was shocked by the backlash against the deal among Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators in the press. As we have argued since 2016, there is no political constraint to being tough on China on trade. This is a highly controversial view as many in the investment community agree with the narrative that the soybean lobby will prevent a trade war between the U.S. and China. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Republicans in Congress, once staunch defenders of free trade, have therefore adjusted their policy preference, creating a political constraint to a quick deal with China. Bottom Line: Yes, the trade war is back on. We are re-opening our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms. Is Italy Going To Leave The Euro Area? The Italian bond market is beginning to price severe geopolitical stress. The 10-year BTP spread versus German bunds has grown 98 basis points since the election (Chart 1), while the 2/10 BTP yield curve has nearly inverted (Chart 2). The latter suggests that investors are beginning to price in default risk, or rather Euro Area exit risk, over the next two years. Chart 1Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Chart 2...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated We have long contended that Italy is the premier developed market political risk.4 Its level of Euroskepticism is empirically higher than that of the rest of Euro Area (Chart 3) and we have expected that Italy would eventually produce a global risk off. It is just not clear to us that this is the moment. Chart 3Italy: No Euro Support Rebound First, support for the Euro Area remains in the high 50% range and has largely bounced between 55-60% for several years. This is low relative to its Euro Area peers, prompting us to raise the alarm on Italy. But it is also still a majority, showing that Italians are not sold on leaving the Euro Area. Second, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) has adjusted its policy towards the euro membership question in view of this polling. In other words, M5S is aware that the median Italian voter is not convinced that exiting the Euro Area is the right thing to do. We would argue that the anti-establishment parties performed well in this year's election precisely because of this strategic decision to abandon their Euroskeptic rhetoric on the currency union. Nonetheless, the deal that M5S signed to form a coalition with the far more Euroskeptic Lega was an aggressive deal that signals that Rome is preparing for a fight against Brussels, the ECB, and core Europe. The proposed tax cuts, unwinding of retirement reforms, and increases in social welfare spending would raise Italy's budget deficit from current 2.3% of GDP to above 7%. Given rules against such profligacy, and given Italy's high debt levels, the coalition might as well be proposing a Euro Area exit. There are three additional concerns aside from fiscal profligacy: New Election: President Sergio Mattarella's choice for interim prime minister - now that M5S and Lega have broken off their attempt to form a government - has no chance of gaining a majority in the current parliament. As such, the president is likely to call a new election. The leaders of M5S and the Lega, as well as the leaders of the center-left Democratic Party (DP), want the election to be held on July 29, ahead of the ferragosto holidays that shuts down the country in August.5 The market does not like the uncertainty of new election as the current M5S-Lega coalition looks likely to win again, only this time with even more seats. As such, the last thing investors want is a summer full of hyperbolic, populist, anti-establishment statements that will undoubtedly be part of the electoral campaigns. Polls: The two populist parties, M5S and the Lega, are gaining in the polls, particularly the latter, which is the more Euroskeptic (Chart 4). This suggests to investors that the more Euroskeptic approach is gaining support. Impeachment: The leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, has called for the impeachment of President Mattarella. Di Maio accused Mattarella of overstepping his constitutional responsibility when he denied the populist coalition's preferred candidate for economy minister, Paolo Savona. Impeachment would be a major concern for the markets as Mattarella's mandate is set to expire only in 2022, which means that he remains a considerable constraint on populism until then. Our reading is that Mattarella did not violate the constitution and that he is unlikely to be removed from power, even if the parliament does impeach him.6 Over the next month, investors will watch all three factors closely. In our view, it is positive that the election may take place over the summer - for the first time in Italy's history - as it would reduce the period of uncertainty. Second, it is understandable that investors will fret about Lega's rise in the polls. However, the closer Lega approaches M5S in the polls, the less likely the two parties will be to maintain their current coalition. At some point, it will not be in the interest of M5S to form a coalition with its chief opponent, especially if Lega gains support and therefore demands a greater share of power in the revised coalition deal. A much preferable coalition partner for M5S would be the center-left PD, which will be weaker, and hence more manageable, and would be a better ideological match. Therefore we believe that the market is getting ahead of itself. Italian policymakers are looking for a fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB over fiscal room and profligacy. This is a fight that will take considerable time to resolve and should add a fiscal premium to the long-dated Italian bonds. In fact, May 29 had the biggest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 5). However, policymakers are not (yet) looking for exit from the Euro Area. As such, risk premium on the 10-year BTPs does make sense, but the sharp move on the 2-year notes is premature. Chart 4Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Chart 5Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Bottom Line: Italian policymakers are not looking to exit the Euro Area. Their fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018 and makes it dangerous to try to "catch the falling knife" of the BTPs. However, expecting the yield curve to invert is premature as an Italian Euro Area exit over the next two years is unlikely. Over the next ten years, however, we would expect Italy to test the markets with a Euro Area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today. Is Spanish Election Threat The Same As Italy? Chart 6Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spain is having its own political crisis. The inconclusive June 2016 election produced a minority conservative government, with the center-right People's Party (PP) supported on critical matters by the center-left Socialist Party (PSOE). The leader of the PSOE, Pedro Sanchez, has decided to withdraw his support for the minority government due to alleged evidence of PP corruption, allegations that have dogged the conservatives for years. A vote of confidence on Friday could bring down the government. Why did the PSOE decide to challenge PP now? Because polls are showing that PP is in decline, as is, Podemos, the far-left party that nearly outperformed PSOE in the 2016 election (Chart 6). The greatest beneficiary of the political realignment in Spain, however, is Ciudadanos, a radically centrist and radically pro-European party that originated in Catalonia. Ciudadanos's official platform in the December 2017 regional elections in Catalonia was "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country, and Europe is our future." New elections in Spain are likely to produce a highly pro-market outcome where the centrist and pro-EU Ciudadanos forms a coalition with PSOE. While such a coalition would lean towards more fiscal spending, it would not unravel the crucial structural reforms painfully implemented by Mariano Rajoy's conservative governments since 2012. It also is as far away from Euroskepticism as exists in Europe at the moment. Bottom Line: A new Spanish election would be a market-positive event. The country would have a more stable government, replacing the current minority PP government that has lost all its political capital after implementing painful structural reforms and being dogged by corruption allegations. There is no Euroskeptic political alternative in Spain at the moment. As such, we are recommending that clients go long 10-year Spanish government bonds against Italian.7 Any contagion from Italy to Spain is inappropriate politically and is a misapplied vestige of the early days of the Euro Area crisis when all peripheral bonds traded in concerto. As such, it should be faded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, and "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 According to the White House statement, the specific list of covered imports subjected to tariffs will be announced on June 15. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016 and "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Corriere Della Sera, "Governo: cresce l'ipotesi del voto il 29 luglio. Salvini: "Al voto con Savona candidato," dated May 29, 2018, available at www.corriere.it. 6 Like in the U.S., the threshold for impeachment in Italy is low. Both chambers of parliament merely have to impeach the president with a simple majority. However, in Italy, the trial is not held in the parliament, but rather by the Constitutional Court's 15 judges and an additional 16 specially appointed judges - selected randomly. It is highly unlikely that Mattarella, himself a previous member of the court, would be found guilty, particularly since he acted in accordance with presidential powers outlined in Article 87 of the constitution ("The President shall appoint State officials in the cases provided for by the law") and in accordance with precedent (in 1994, the president then refused to appoint Silvio Berlusconi's personal lawyer as the country's minister of justice). In addition, leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has stated that he would not want to see Mattarella impeached. This is likely because the process has a low probability of success. Furthermore, the president cannot disband the parliament and call new elections if impeachment proceedings begin against him. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades," dated May 29, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Neutral In yesterday's Weekly Report, we pulled the trigger on our upgrade watch for the niche S&P homebuilding index,1 monetizing our 24% relative gains since the late-November 2017 inception. Three main reasons underpin our upgrade to a benchmark allocation: 1. Bond market selloff taking a breather, 2. Housing fundamentals remain robust and 3. Compelling valuations reflect most, if not all, of the bad news. With respect to the first of these, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategists believe that the likelihood of a near-term pullback in U.S. Treasury yields has increased. This should support continued gains in the MBA's mortgage purchase index, which has climbed to a fresh cycle high (top panel). Housing fundamentals have proven resilient; new home prices have exited the deflation zone versus existing home prices which is significant for the relative profitability of homebuilding stocks (second panel). Finally, relative valuations have undershot the historical mean on a price-to-sales basis with homebuilders trading at a 50% discount to the broad market (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We are acting on our upgrade alert in the S&P homebuilding index and lifting exposure to neutral. Please see this week's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM.

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we review all of the individual trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. These are positions that are intended to complement our strategic Model Bond Portfolio, typically with shorter holding periods, and sometimes in smaller or less liquid markets that are outside our usual core bond coverage (like Swedish government bonds or euro area CPI swaps). This report includes a summary of the rationale for each position, as well as a decision on whether to retain the position, close it or switch it into a new trade that has more profit potential for the same theme underlying the original trade (Table 1). Table 1Global Fixed Income Strategy Tactical Overlay Trades Feature U.S. Long 5-year U.S. Treasury bullet vs. 2-year/10-year duration-matched barbell (CLOSE AND SWITCH TO NEW TRADE) Long U.S. TIPS vs. nominal U.S. Treasuries (HOLD) Short 10-year U.S. Treasuries vs. 10-year German Bunds (HOLD) Chart 1UST Curve Trading More Off The Funds##BR##Rate Than Inflation Expectations We have three U.S.-focused tactical trades that are all expressions of our core views on U.S. inflation expectations and future Fed monetary policy moves. We first recommended a U.S. butterfly trade, going long the 5-year U.S. Treasury bullet and short a duration-matched 2-year/10-year Treasury barbell (Chart 1), back on December 20th, 2016. We have kept the recommendation during periodic reviews of our tactical trades since then. This is a position that was expected to benefit from a bearish steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve as the market priced in higher longer-term inflation expectations. The trade has not performed according to our expectations, however, generating a loss of -0.40% since inception.1 There was a positive correlation between the slope of the Treasury curve, the butterfly spread and TIPS breakevens shortly after trade inception. However, the Treasury curve flattened through 2017 as the Fed continued to hike rates, even as realized inflation fell (2nd panel), pushing the real fed funds towards neutral levels as measured by estimates like r* (3rd panel). This has left the 2/5/10 Treasury butterfly cheap on our valuation model (bottom panel), Looking ahead, the case for a renewed bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve, and widening of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, rests on the Fed accommodating the current rise in U.S. inflation by being cautious with future rate hikes. Recent comments from Fed officials suggest that policymakers are in no hurry to rapidly raise rates in order to cool off an "overheating" U.S. economy. Yet at the same time, U.S. inflation continues to rise and the economy is in good shape, so the Fed can't take a pause on rate hikes. This will likely leave the Treasury curve range bound, with the potential for some periods of bear-steepening as inflation expectations rise. Our conviction on this Treasury butterfly spread trade has fallen of late. Yet with our model suggesting that the belly of the curve is somewhat cheap to the wings, and given our view that U.S. inflation expectations have not reached a cyclical peak, we are reluctant to completely exit this position. Instead, we are opting to switch out of the 2/5/10 U.S. Treasury butterfly into another butterfly that our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy have identified as cheap within their newly-expanded curve modeling framework - the 1/7/20 butterfly (long the 7-year bullet vs. short a duration-matched 1/20 barbell).2 That butterfly offers better carry than the 2/5/10 butterfly (Chart 2), and is nearly one standard deviation cheap to estimated fair value. Another of our U.S.-focused tactical trades has been to directly play for rising U.S. inflation expectations by going long TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries. This is a long-held trade (initiated on August 23rd, 2016) which has performed very well, delivering a return of 4.13%.3 We continue to see the potential for TIPS breakevens to widen back to levels consistent with the market believing that inflation can sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target on the PCE deflator, which is equivalent to 2.4-2.5% on CPI-based 10-year TIPS inflation expectations. Given the persistent strong correlation between oil prices and breakevens, and with the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy team continuing to forecast Brent oil prices jumping above $80/bbl over the next year (Chart 3), there is still solid underlying support for wider breakevens. This is especially true given the uptrend in overall global inflation (middle panel), and the likelihood that core U.S. inflation can also continue to rise alongside an expanding U.S. economy (bottom panel). We are sticking with our long TIPS position vs. nominal Treasuries. Chart 2Switch The UST Butterfly##BR##Trade From 2/5/10 to 1/7/20 Chart 3Stay Long U.S. TIPS##BR##Vs. Nominal Treasuries Our final U.S.-focused tactical trade is actually a cross-market trade where we are short 10-year U.S. Treasuries versus 10-year German Bunds. We initiated that trade on August 8th, 2017 when the Treasury-Bund spread was at 179bps. With the spread now at 252bps, the trade has delivered a solid total return of 4.23%. This was driven primarily by the rapid move higher in Treasury yields in response to faster U.S. growth (Chart 4), more rapid U.S. inflation and Fed rate hikes versus a stand-pat European Central Bank (ECB).4 From a medium-term perspective, those three fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread continue to point to U.S. bond underperformance (Chart 5). From this perspective, the peak in the spread will not be reached until U.S. economic growth and inflation peak and the Fed signals an end to its current tightening cycle. None of those outcomes is on the horizon, and we continue to target an eventual cyclical top in the 10-year Treasury yield in the 3.25-3.5% range as inflation expectations move higher. Yet the Treasury-Bund spread has reached an overvalued extreme according to our "fair value" model (Chart 6). In other words, the markets have moved to more than fully discount the cyclical differences between the U.S. and euro area - a trend that surely reflects the huge short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. Yet it is also important to note that the fair value spread continues to steadily climb higher. In our model, the spread is primarily a function of differences in central bank policy rates between the Fed and ECB, relative unemployment rates and relative headline inflation rates. All three of those factors continue to move in a direction favorable to a wider Treasury-Bund spread, and the gap is only growing wider with both growth and inflation in the euro zone losing momentum. Chart 4Stay Long 10yr UST##BR##Vs. 10yr German Bund Chart 5UST-Bund Spread Widening##BR##Due To Relative Fundamentals... Chart 6...But The Spread##BR##Has Overshot A Bit The spread is currently being pushed to even wider extremes by the current turmoil in Italy, which is pushing money out of Italian BTPs into safer assets like Bunds. The situation remains fluid and new elections are likely in Italy later this year, thus it is unlikely that any more to restore investor confidence in Italy is on the immediate horizon. This will keep Bund yields depressed versus Treasuries, even as the ECB continues to signal that it will fully taper its asset purchases by year-end (rate hikes remain a long way off in Europe, however). We continue to recommend staying short Treasuries versus Bunds, and would view any tightening of the spread back towards our model estimate of fair value as an opportunity to enter the position or add to an existing position. Euro Area Long 10-year euro area CPI swaps (HOLD, BUT ADD A STOP AT 1.5%) Short 5-year Italy government bonds vs. 5-year Spain government bonds (HOLD) Chart 7Stay Long 10-Year Euro Area CPI Swaps We have two tactical trades that are purely within the euro area: positioning for higher inflation expectations through a long position in 10-year euro CPI swaps, and playing relative credit quality within the Peripheral countries by shorting 5-year Italian bonds versus a long position in 5-year Spanish debt. The long 10-year CPI swaps trade, which was initiated on December 20th, 2016, has generated a total return of +0.45% over the life of the trade so far (Chart 7).5 The rationale for the recommendation, and our conviction behind it, has evolved over that time. We first recommended the trade when the ECB was aggressively easing monetary policy and there was clear positive momentum in euro area economic growth that was driving down unemployment. At a time when oil prices were steadily climbing and the euro was very weak, the case for seeing some improvement in inflation expectations in the euro area was a strong one. Inflation expectations stayed resilient in 2017, however, despite the unexpected strength of the euro. Continued gains in oil prices and above-trend economic growth that rapidly absorbed spare capacity in the euro area more than offset any downward pressure on inflation from a stronger currency. Looking ahead, the combination of renewed weakness in the euro and firm oil prices should allow headline inflation in the euro area to drift higher from current levels in the next 3-6 months (2nd panel). However, the euro area economy has lost the positive momentum seen last year with steady declines in cyclical data like manufacturing PMIs, industrial production and exports (3rd panel). Admittedly, that deceleration has come from a high level and leading indicators are not yet pointing to a prolonged period of below-potential growth that could raise unemployment and reduce domestic inflation pressures. Yet with core inflation still struggling to climb beyond the 1% level (bottom panel), any worsening of euro area economic momentum could lead to inflation expectations stalling out well before getting close to the ECB's 2% target level. Thus, we continue to recommend this long 10-year CPI swaps position, but we are adding a new stop-out level at 1.5% to protect against downside risks if the euro area growth outlook darkens. On our other euro area tactical trade, we have been recommending shorting Italian government bonds versus Spanish equivalents. We initiated that trade on December 16th, 2016 and it has produced a total return of +0.57% over the life of the trade. The original logic for the trade was based on an assessment that Italy's medium-term growth potential, sovereign debt fundamentals and political stability were all much worse than that of Spain (Chart 8), yet Italian bond yields were still trading at too low a spread to Spanish debt. The cyclical improvement in the Italian economy in 2017 helped pushed Italian yields even closer to Spanish yields, yet we stuck with the trade given the looming political risk from the Italian parliamentary elections. The recent political turmoil in Italy has justified our persistence with this trade, with the 5-year Italy-Spain spread widening out by 46 bps over just the past two weeks. With the situation remaining highly fluid as the Italian coalition partners (the 5-Star Movement and the League) struggle to form a new government, Italian assets will continue to trade with a substantial risk premium to Spain and other European bond markets. Yet with the Italian economy now also showing signs of losing cyclical momentum, the case for continued Italian bond underperformance is a strong one, and we moved to a strategic underweight stance on Italian debt last week.6 Looking ahead, we see the potential for additional spread widening between Italy and Spain in the coming months. Spain is enjoying better economic growth, the deficit outlook is worsening for Italy with the new coalition government proposing a stimulus that could widen the budget deficit by as much as 6% of GDP, and Spanish support for the euro currency is far higher than it is in Italy. All those factors justify a wider risk premium for Italian debt over Spanish bonds (Chart 9). Chart 8Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Chart 9Stay Short 5-Year Italy Versus 5-Year Spain Our view on Italian debt, both from a tactical and strategic viewpoint, is bearish. We are maintaining our tactical trade, and we also advise selling into any rallies in Italy rather than buying the dips. U.K. Long 5-year Gilt bullet vs. duration-matched 2-year/10-year Gilt barbell (HOLD) We entered into a U.K. Gilt butterfly trade, long the 5-year bullet versus the duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell, back on March 27th, 2018.7 The logic of the trade was a simple one. We simply did not believe that the Bank of England (BoE) would follow through on its hawkish commentary by hiking rates as much as was discounted in the Gilt curve. Our view came to fruition as the BoE held rates steady at the May monetary policy meeting, which resulted in a bullish steepening at the front end of the Gilt curve. Our butterfly trade has returned +0.25% since inception, and we see more to come in the coming months.8 The U.K. economy has lost considerable momentum, with no growth shown in Q1 (real GDP only expanded +0.1%). The OECD leading economic indicator for the U.K. is at the weakest level in five years, and now consumer confidence is rolling over as rising oil costs are offsetting the pickup in wages (Chart 10). Overall headline inflation has peaked, however, after the big currency-fueled surge in 2016 and 2017 (bottom panel). With both growth and inflation slowing, and with the lingering uncertainty of the Brexit negotiations weighing on business confidence and investment, the BoE will have a tough time hiking rates even one more time this year. There are still 34bps of rate hikes priced into the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, which leaves room for 2-year Gilts to decline as the BoE stays on hold for longer (Chart 11). This will cause the front-end of the Gilt curve to steepen. Meanwhile, longer-term Gilt yields will have a difficult time falling given the deceleration of global central bank asset purchase programs that is slowly raising depressed term premia on government bonds (3rd panel). Another factor that will help keep the Gilt curve steeper, all else equal, is the path of the inflation expectations curve. Shorter-dated expectations are likely to fall faster as growth slows and headline inflation continues to drift lower (bottom panel). Chart 10Fading Momentum For##BR##U.K. Growth & Inflation Chart 11Stay Long The 5yr U.K. Gilt Bullet##BR##Vs. The 2/10 Gilt Barbell Although some narrowing of the butterfly spread is already priced in the forwards (top panel), we see that outperformance of the 5-year happening faster, and by a greater amount, than the forwards. Stay long the belly of the Gilt curve versus the wings. Canada Long 10-year Canada inflation-linked government bonds vs. nominal Canada government bonds (HOLD) We recommended entering a long Canada 10-year breakeven inflation trade on January 9th, 2018.9 Since then, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate rose by 6bps along with the rise in oil prices denominated in Canadian dollars (Chart 12). This has helped our tactical trade deliver a return of +0.64% since inception.10 More fundamentally, the breakeven has risen as strong Canadian growth has helped close the output gap and push realized Canadian inflation back to the middle of the Bank of Canada (BoC)'s 1-3% target band. The rapid rate of real GDP growth has decelerated a bit after approaching 4% last year, and the OECD leading economic indicator for Canada may be peaking at a high level (Chart 13). Growth in consumer spending is also look a bit toppy, with bigger downside risks evident in the sharp declines in the growth of retail sales and house prices (3rd panel). Both were affected by a harsher-than-usual Canadian winter, but the cooling of the overheated Canadian housing market (especially in Toronto) is a welcome development for financial stability. Chart 12Stay Long Canadian##BR##Inflation Breakevens Chart 13Canadian Inflation At BoC Target,##BR##But Has Growth Peaked? On balance, however, the current state of Canadian economic data shows an economy that is slowing a bit from a very overheated pace, but is still likely to grow above potential with no spare capacity available. Both headline and core inflation will remain under upward pressure against this backdrop, at a time when the BoC's policy rate is still well below neutral. We continue to recommend staying long Canadian inflation-linked government bonds over nominal equivalents with a near-term target of 2% on the 10-year breakeven inflation rate. We will re-evaluate the position with regards to Canadian growth and inflation trends once that target is reached. Australia Long December 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures (SELL AND SWITCH TO NEW TRADE). We entered into a long December 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures trade on October 17, 2017 as a focused way to express the view that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would stay on hold for longer than markets expect. The trade has worked out nicely, generating a profit of +0.25%. The potential for further upside is fairly low at these levels so we are now closing the trade. However, our view remains that the RBA will not be able to hike as early as markets are pricing. As such, we are opening a new position - long October 2019 Australia Bank Bill futures. Markets expect the first rate hike will occur in nine months' time. The October 2019 Australia Bank Bill futures are currently pricing in a massive 180bps of rate hikes over the next sixteen months. That will not happen. The RBA will not be able to hike this much given the lack of inflation pressures and a wide output gap. Our Australia Central Bank Monitor, which measures cyclical growth and inflation pressures, has pulled back to the zero line, confirming that there is no current need to tighten policy (Chart 14). Real GDP growth slowed to 2.4% in Q4 2017, from 2.9% the previous quarter. Weakness in the OECD leading economic indicator and Citigroup economic surprise index for Australia suggest that the Q1 reading will also disappoint. Consumer spending will be dampened by weak wage growth, softening consumer sentiment and the recent decline in house prices in multiple major cities. As a result of easing house prices, the growth rate of household net wealth was considerably lower in 2017 relative to the previous four years. Additionally, credit growth has been slowing, even before the recent news of the bank scandals that will force banks to be more stringent with lending practices. Most importantly, however, inflation remains below the RBA's target and there is a lack of inflationary pressures. The inflation component of our Central Bank Monitor has collapsed and is now well below the zero line. Both headline and core inflation readings are stable but remain persistently below 2%. Tradeable goods prices have declined for nine consecutive months despite the currency weakness seen in the Australian dollar over the past twelve months. The IMF is not projecting Australia to have a closed output gap until 2020, and that is with the optimistic expectation that Australia achieves 3% growth. Labor markets have plenty of slack as evidenced by rising unemployment rate, nonexistent wage growth and elevated level of underemployment. The RBA estimates that the current unemployment rate is still approximately 0.5% above full employment. Against this backdrop, it is unlikely that inflation will sustainably rise enough to force the RBA's hand, leaving scope for interest rate expectations to decline (Chart 15). Chart 14The RBA Will##BR##Stay Dovish Chart 15Switch Long Australia Bank Bill Futures##BR##Trade From Dec/18 Contract To Oct/19 Contract New Zealand Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds vs. 5-year U.S. Treasuries, currency-hedged into U.S. dollars (HOLD) Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds vs. 5-year German government bonds, with no currency hedge (HOLD) One of our more successful tactical trades has been in New Zealand (NZ) government bonds. We entered long positions in 5-year NZ debt versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries and 5-year German Bunds on May 30th, 2017, but we reviewed, and decided to maintain, those positions in a recent Weekly Report.11 The NZ-US spread trade has returned 4.67% since inception, hedged into U.S. dollars (Chart 16).12 The NZ-Germany trade, however, was a very rare instance where we recommended a cross-country spread trade on a currency UN-hedged basis, based on the negative view on the euro that we had last year. With the euro rising sharply against the New Zealand dollar, the unhedged return on that trade has been -2.87% (a return that, if hedged back into the euro denomination of the German bonds, would have generated a return of +3.56%). Looking ahead, we see continued scope for NZ bond outperformance, although the return potential is far less than it was when we first put on the trade. NZ economic growth is in the process of peaking, with export growth already rolling over (Chart 17, top panel). Net immigration inflows, which have been a major support for the NZ housing market and overall consumer spending over the past five years, have already begun to slow with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) projecting bigger declines in the next couple of years (2nd panel). Both headline and core CPI inflation took a surprising downward turn in Q1 of this year, and both are well below the midpoint of the RBNZ target band (3rd panel). Chart 16Stay Long NZ 5yr Bonds##BR##Vs. The U.S. & Germany... Chart 17...With NZ Growth &##BR##Inflation Losing Momentum With both growth and inflation slowing, the RBNZ can remain dovish on monetary policy. An additional factor is the NZ government has recently changed the mandate of the RBNZ to include both inflation targeting and "maximizing employment" in a similar fashion to the Federal Reserve. With inflation posing no threat, the RBNZ can focus on its employment mandate by maintaining highly accommodative policy settings. With the NZ OIS curve still discounting one full 25bp RBNZ hike over the next year (bottom panel), there is scope for NZ bonds to outperform as that hike will not happen. This will allow NZ bond spreads to tighten, or at least outperform versus the forwards where some modest widening is currently priced. We are sticking with both spread trades, but we are choosing to leave the NZ-Germany trade currency unhedged given the renewed weakness in the euro (the unhedged return has already improved by over two full percentage points since the euro peaked earlier this year). We will monitor levels of the NZD/EUR currency cross rate to determine when to potentially hedge the currency exposure of our trade back into euros. Sweden Long Sweden 10-year government bond vs. 2-year government bond Short 2-year Sweden government bond vs. 2-year German government bond We recently entered two Sweden tactical bond trades on May 8, 2018, going long the Swedish 10-year vs. the 2-year and shorting the Swedish 2-year vs. the German 2-year (Chart 18).13 We expect that strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force the Riksbank to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Since inception for these "young" trades, each has returned -1bp.14 Sweden's economy made a solid recovery in 2017, with year-over-year real GDP growth reaching 3.3% in Q4. Going forward, export growth will remain supported by strong global activity, low unit labor costs, and a weak krona. Our own Swedish export growth model is already signaling a pickup over the rest of 2018. Consumption has been resilient and should continue to be supported by steadily recovering wages. Capital spending has been robust and industrial confidence remains in an uptrend. Additionally, leading indicators are still signaling positive growth momentum. The Riksbank's preferred measure of inflation, CPIF, slowed to 1.9% in April after briefly touching the central bank's target last month (Chart 19). In our view, this is a minor pullback rather than the start of a sustained reversal. Our core inflation model projects a gradual increase in the coming months, driven by above-trend growth that has soaked up all spare capacity. Labor markets have tightened considerably, and the unemployment rate is now more than one percentage point below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU. During the last period when unemployment was this far below NAIRU, wage growth surged to over 4%. Chart 18Stay In A Sweden 2/10 Curve Flattener##BR##& Short 2yr Swedish Bonds Vs Germany Chart 19The Riksbank Will Not Ignore##BR##The Coming Inflation Overshoot For the curve flattener trade, our expectation is that the Riksbank will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, leading markets to reprice the shape of the Swedish yield curve, as too few rate hikes are discounted in the short-end. With their mandates met, the Riksbank will be forced to act more aggressively. Importantly, there is no flattening currently priced into the Swedish bond forward curve, thus there is no negative carry associated with putting on a flattener now. In the relative value trade, we shorted the Swedish 2-year relative to the German 2-year. Growth in Sweden is likely to outpace that of the euro area once again in 2018. Swedish inflation is almost at the Riksbank target while euro area inflation continues to undershoot the ECB benchmark. The ECB is signaling that it is in no hurry to begin raising interest rates, therefore policy rate differentials will drive the 2-year Sweden-Germany spread wider over the next 12-18 months, with no spread move currently priced into the forwards. South Korea Short Korea 10-Year Government Bonds Vs. Long 2-Year Korea Government Bonds (CLOSE) We first introduced this trade on May 30th, 2017, after the election of Moon Jae-In as the South Korean president.15 The new government made major campaign promises to greatly expand fiscal spending on social welfare, public sector job creation, and increased aid to North Korea. With the central government's budget balance set to worsen significantly, we expected longer-term Korean bond yields to begin to price in faster growth and rising future debt levels, resulting in a bearish steepening of the yield curve (Chart 20). Since the new president was elected, however, the Korean economy worsened - even as much of the global economy was enjoying a cyclical upturn - with the trend likely to continue (Chart 21). The OECD leading economic indicator for Korea is weakening, while the annual growth in industrial production now sits at -4.2% - the worst level since the 2009 recession. Capital spending and exports are also slowing rapidly. Chart 20Close The 2yr/10y Korean##BR##Government Bond Curve Steepener Chart 21Korean Curve Stable,##BR##Despite Slower Growth & Fiscal Stimulus Due to the slowdown in the economy, Korean firms' capacity utilization is now at the worst level since the middle of 2009. Although businesses were already suffering from downward pressure on revenues, the Moon administration dramatically increased the minimum wage last year, directly leading to a rise in bankruptcies for small and medium size firms (the bankruptcy rate rose from 1.9% in the first half of 2017 to 2.5% in the latter half). Looking ahead, the Moon government will continue to increase spending on welfare and financial aid for North Korea, especially if the domestic economy continues to struggle. We still believe that the rise in deficits and debt will eventually lead the market to price in some increase in the fiscal risk premium and a steeper Korean yield curve. Yet with the Bank of Korea (BoK) having already surprised the markets last November with a rate hike, and with Korean inflation now ticking higher alongside a stable won, we fear that any renewed steepening of the Korean curve awaits a shift to a more dovish BoK that is not yet on the horizon. For now, given the competing forces on the Korean yield curve, we are choosing to close our 2/10 Korea curve steepener at a loss of -0.63%.16 We will continue to monitor the Korean situation to look for opportunities to re-enter the trade at a later date. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg pricing of the total return of a 2/5/10 butterfly. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15th 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Return is taken directly from Bloomberg Barclays index data on the duration-adjusted excess return of the entire TIPS index versus the entire Treasury index. 4 This return is calculated using Bloomberg data on actual U.S. and German bonds, and is shown on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars - the currency denomination of the bond we are short in this spread trade. 5 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg Barclays inflation swap index data for a euro area CPI swap with a rolling 10-year maturity. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Nervous Complacency", dated March 27th, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data on actual Gilts, rather than bond index data. 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Let The Good Times Roll", dated January 9th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 10 This return is measured as the total return of the Canadian inflation-linked bond index less that of the nominal Canadian government bond index from the Bloomberg Barclays family of bond indices. 11 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Serenity Now", dated May 15th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data on actual New Zealand government bonds, with our own adjustments for the impact on returns from currency hedging. 13 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Sweden: The Riksbank Cannot Kick The Can Down The Road Anymore", dated May 8th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data for actual individual Swedish government bonds, rather than bond index data. Both legs of the trade are duration-matched. 15 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Returns are calculated using Bloomberg data for actual individual Korean government bonds, rather than bond index data. Both legs of the trade are duration-matched and funding costs are included. 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 Portfolio Strategy A near-term pullback in U.S. Treasury yields, still robust housing fundamentals and compelling valuations that reflect most, if not all, of the bad homebuilding news and offset thorny input cost inflation, entice us to lift the S&P homebuilding index to neutral. Troughing health care outlays versus overall PCE, minor cracks in small business hiring plans, drug pricing uncertainty and the late stages of industry M&A activity suggest that managed health care relative share prices are as good as they get. Recent Changes Book profits of 24% and augment the S&P Homebuilding Index to a benchmark allocation. Downgrade the S&P Managed Health Care Index to neutral, locking in profits of 28%. Take the S&P Telecom Services Index off the high-conviction underweight list for a gain of 10% (please see the Insight Report on May 24, 2018). Table 1 Feature Stocks held on to their early-May gains and are on track to end the month with handsome returns. While the SPX is not out of the woods yet, still shaking off the early-February tremor, our cyclically upbeat view remains intact. Recent data suggest that earnings will remain healthy, and we expect this will propel the S&P 500 to a fresh all-time high in the back half of the year. It's true that elevated corporate debt levels are a cause for concern, as we detailed in a recent Special Report titled 'Til Debt Do Us Part', and this week we highlight that the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) private non-financial business sector debt-to-GDP ratio confirms the Fed data we presented in that report (Chart 1). Similarly, BIS's debt service ratio1 for non-financial corporates also confirms the Datastream Worldscope stock market data of a deteriorating interest coverage ratio (EBIT/interest expense) for non-financial equities (Chart 1). While we are closely monitoring unfolding debt dynamics, high debt levels are probably a longer-term problem (beyond the next 9-12 months) for the U.S. equity market. Higher interest rates are required in order for a debt crisis to unravel. With that in mind we were pleasantly surprised to notice that net bond ratings migration is moving in the right direction i.e. upgrades are outpacing downgrades. This is impressive as the V-shaped recovery following the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession is already reflected in the data and the most recent uptick likely represents a fresh/different mini credit cycle (downgrades minus upgrades as a percent of total shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). Chart 1Saddled With Debt... Chart 2...But Ratings Migration Moving In The Right Direction Either bond rating agencies are lowering their standards or euphoric rating agencies just reflect the recent fiscal policy easing, extremely low starting point of interest rates and an overall recovery in animal spirits. We side with the latter, and the implication is that SPX momentum will reaccelerate in the coming months, if history at least rhymes (bottom panel, Chart 2). Other indicators we monitor corroborate the positive equity backdrop suggested by the ratings migration data. For example, tracking tax revenue provides an excellent near real-time gauge on corporate sector cash flows. Federal income tax receipts have spiked into double-digit territory. Even state and local government tax coffers are surging, although this dataset is quarterly and trails the monthly released Federal series by four months. Government tax receipt growth has either led or coincided with previous major and sustainable overall profit recoveries (Chart 3). This suggests that S&P 500 second quarter earnings growth will surprise to the upside, despite an already high bar, in-line with our still expanding EPS growth model; the ISM, interest rates, the U.S. dollar and house prices comprise our four factor model (Chart 4). Nevertheless, the latest bout of EM currency weakness spreading beyond the 'fragile five' is a risk to our sanguine EPS growth view, especially in the back half of the year and into 2019. In other words, if this episode mostly resembles the 2013 'taper tantrum' induced devaluations then most of the damage is already done (Chart 5). However, if all of a sudden China falls off a cliff and is forced to devalue à la 2015 then all bets are off and a 'risk off' phase will ensue leading to a spike in the U.S. dollar. Chart 3Money Flowing Into Government Coffers Takes##br## A Real Time Pulse Of Corporate Profits Chart 4Q2 Profits Will Likely ##br##Surprise To The Upside... Chart 5...But A U.S. Dollar##br## Spike Is A Risk As a reminder, the greenback is a key input to our EPS growth regression model and any sustained gains will eventually weigh on SPX profits. This is clearly a risk, but our sense is that there are more parallels with 2013 than with 2015 and one big difference is the bond market's response. The third panel of Chart 5 shows that spreads have not blown out to an alarming level, at least not yet, and signal that a generalized emerging market currency crisis will be averted. Finally, another big difference with the 2015 episode is that the commodity complex is not reeling (bottom panel, Chart 5). This week we are acting on two alerts, one downgrade and one upgrade, and crystalizing outsized gains in a defensive subsector and also taking profits in a niche early cyclical sub-index. Enough Is Enough, Upgrade Homebuilders To Neutral We put the niche S&P homebuilding index on upgrade watch in late-March,2 and today we recommend pulling the trigger and monetizing our 24% relative gains since the late-November 2017 inception. Three main reasons underpin our upgrade to a benchmark allocation: 1. Bond market selloff taking a breather 2. Housing fundamentals remain robust 3. Compelling valuations reflect most, if not all, of the bad news In March we posited that "any rise above 3.05% on the 10-year Treasury yield in a short timeframe would likely prove restrictive for the U.S. economy".3 Fast forward to today and BCA's U.S. Bond Strategists believe that the likelihood of a near-term pullback in U.S. Treasury yields has increased on the back of largely discounted Fed rate hikes, extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data. This backdrop should, at the margin, give some breathing room to this interest rate-sensitive index. True, refinancing mortgage application activity has nearly ground to a halt, but the MBA's mortgage purchase index continues to climb to fresh cycle highs defying rising 30-year fixed mortgage rates (top panel, Chart 6). The MBA weekly survey is nearly exhaustive as it "covers over 75 percent of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications".4 Importantly, examining the relative volume of purchase activity is instructive. Currently, purchase applications comprise over 2/3 of total applications. There is a positive correlation between interest rates and the purchase share of overall mortgage activity as the middle panel of Chart 6 clearly depicts. This is because refinancing takes the back seat as mortgage rates rise, whereas first time home buyers are less sensitive to the level of interest rates. Wage growth and job security are most important when undertaking the first mortgage. Put differently, a pick up in economic growth that is synonymous with higher interest rates entices rather than dissuades would-be first time home buyers. The U.S. economy is currently at full employment, underscoring that the unemployment rate should move inversely with the purchase share of mortgage activity. Indeed, empirical evidence confirms this negative correlation (bottom panel, Chart 6). Similarly, the firming economic backdrop should also lead to a renormalization of the residential housing market. Household formation is still running at a higher clip than housing starts, signaling that there is little slack in the residential housing market (middle panel, Chart 7). Homebuilder confidence is as good as it gets and home prices are expanding at a healthy pace (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Housing Fundamentals... Chart 7...Remain On A Solid Footing Importantly, new home prices have exited the deflation zone versus existing home prices which is significant for the relative profitability of homebuilding stocks (third panel, Chart 8). The tightness in the new home market is also evident in the relative sales backdrop: new home sales are outshining existing home sales which is conducive to a further increase in relative top line growth and thus relative share prices (top and second panels, Chart 8). Finally, relative valuations have undershot the historical mean on a price-to-sales basis with homebuilders trading at a 50% discount to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 8). We deem that most of the bad news is likely reflected in cheap valuations and the message is that it no longer pays to be bearish the niche S&P homebuilding index. Nevertheless, we refrain from swinging all the way to an above benchmark allocation as spiking building material costs are starting to bite, according to the latest NAHB sentiment survey (middle panel, Chart 9). Moreover, long-term EPS euphoria pushing 30%, or twice the rate of the SPX, has hit a level that typically marks relative share price tops, not troughs (bottom panel, Chart 9). Were lumber prices to give way either courtesy of a rising U.S. dollar and/or a positive resolution in the NAFTA negotiations we would not hesitate to boost this index to an overweight stance. Chart 8Firming Top And Bottom Line Growth Prospects Chart 9Surging Building Supply Costs Are A Big Risk Netting it all out, a near-term pullback in U.S. Treasury yields, still robust housing fundamentals and compelling valuations that reflect most, if not all, of the bad homebuilding news and offset thorny input cost inflation, entice us to move to a neutral stance in the S&P homebuilding index. Bottom Line: We are acting on our upgrade alert and booking gains of 24% in the S&P homebuilding index and lifting exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM. Managed Health Care: Don't Overstay Your Welcome Relative share price gains for the S&P managed health care index are nearly exhausted. We are acting on our late-March downgrade alert and taking profits of 28% versus the S&P 500 since inception. At the margin, macro drivers have turned from a tailwind to a mild headwind. Long-term trends in HMOs move in distinct cycles tied with overall health care spending. When overall health care outlays begin to accelerate relative to total consumption the pressure increases on payers of medical services (i.e. health insurance) relative to the providers of those services. The opposite is also true (relative health care outlays shown inverted, Chart 10). Chart 10Rising Relative Health Care##br## Outlays Weigh On HMOs If relative health care spending has troughed for the cycle, then there are high odds that the decade long relative bull market has run its course and a major top is in place. Industry top-line growth is also fraying around the edges. The second panel of Chart 11 shows that the hiring plans subcomponent of the NFIB survey of small business owners has sunk recently. Despite an overall stable and growing employment backdrop, this letdown is disconcerting as roughly 65% of all net new job gains occur in the SME space.5 The implication is that enrollment may also be nearing a peak. Meanwhile, on the input cost front, a softer than expected blow to drug pricing practices revealed in the President's recent speech was music to the ears of Big Pharma executives, but cacophony to HMO CEOs. While no bill has been drafted yet and we are awaiting more details, at the margin, this is a net negative for managed health care profits. Historically, our medical care cost proxy has been inversely correlated with industry operating margins and the current message is that the mini margin expansion phase may be short-circuited (middle panel, Chart 12). Tack on a tick up in HMO labor costs and profits will likely underwhelm analysts' optimistic forecasts: the sell-side expects S&P managed health care index profits to outperform the SPX by 330bps in the coming twelve months (bottom panel, Chart 12). We deem it a tall order. Finally, the recent industry M&A frenzy is ebbing, signaling that the M&A premia may soon come out of this health care sub-group (top panel, Chart 13). Importantly, all this euphoria is likely reflected in relative valuations with the relative forward P/E trading one standard deviation above the historical mean (middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Early Signs Of... Chart 12...Margin Pressures Chart 13M&A Frenzy Fully Priced Into Expensive Valuations In sum, we do not want to overstay our welcome in the HMO space that has added considerable alpha to our portfolio since our overweight inception in April 2016. Troughing health care outlays versus overall PCE, minor cracks in the small business hiring plans, drug pricing uncertainty and the late stages of industry M&A activity suggest relative share prices are as good as they get. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P managed health care index to neutral for a gain of 28% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 "The DSR reflects the share of income used to service debt, given interest rates, principal repayments and loan maturities," https://www.bis.org/statistics/dsr.htm. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ibid. 4 https://www.mba.org/2018-press-releases/may/mortgage-rates-increase-applications-decrease-in-latest-mba-weekly-survey 5 https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2011/are-small-businesses-the-biggest-producers-of-jobs Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights The Fed Vs. The Market: The market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" rate hike pace in a status quo economic scenario. But investors also view the odds of the Fed slowing the pace of hikes as greater than the odds of it hiking more quickly. Dovish Catalysts: The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. Hawkish Catalysts: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Feature In last week's report we recommended that nimble investors should position for a near-term (0-3 month) decline in Treasury yields.1 Since then, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from 3.06% to 2.93% but we are not yet ready to remove our recommendation. The two criteria we named in last week's report - extended net short bond positioning and a high likelihood of negative data surprises - remain in place. As such, we expect bond yields to fall further in the near-term, though we remain bond bears on a cyclical (6-12 month) investment horizon. This week we turn to Fed policy, and specifically the following three questions: What does the Fed mean when it says it will make "further gradual adjustments" to the stance of monetary policy? How do "gradual adjustments" relate to what is currently priced in the market? What factors would cause the Fed to deviate from its "gradual" path, leading to either a faster or slower pace of tightening? The Market Trusts The Fed...To A Point We have noted in previous reports that the Fed's "gradual" pace of rate hikes is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter. The Fed has tightened policy at this pace since December 2016, with the exception of last September when it announced the winding down of its balance sheet in place of a hike. It seems to us that the Fed's policy intentions have rarely been more transparent. The Fed will continue to lift rates by 25 bps per quarter until either (i) something breaks in the economy causing the Fed to slow down, or (ii) inflation pressures mount causing the Fed to speed up. But what about market pricing? To be consistent with the Fed's "gradual" pace of one hike per quarter the market would need to be priced for 50 bps of tightening during the next six months, 100 bps of tightening during the next 12 months, etc... Chart 1 shows that the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" pace for the next six months, but that it will fall somewhat short during the next year. Looking beyond the next 12 months, the market is not priced for the Fed to deliver on its "gradual" hike pace during the next 18 or 24 months either (Chart 2). Chart 1The Fed Versus The Market Part I Chart 2The Fed Versus The Market Part II A more realistic interpretation of Charts 1 and 2 is that while the market believes the Fed will deliver on its "gradual" hike pace in a status quo economic scenario, investors also view the odds of something breaking in the economy as greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed to move faster. We also agree that the odds of something breaking are greater than the odds that inflation will force the Fed's hand. However, we would still favor a cyclical (6-12 month) below-benchmark duration stance because the market is not priced for the most likely status quo / "gradual" rate hike environment. Identifying Breaking Points How will we be able to tell if something is breaking in the economy that will cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes? Candidate 1: Domestic Economic Growth One way is to simply monitor leading indicators of U.S. economic growth, particularly the contribution of cyclical spending to overall GDP (Chart 3). The cyclical sectors of the economy (consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software) are most sensitive to interest rates and often provide an early warning sign for the overall economy. At the moment we see no evidence that cyclical spending is poised to slow meaningfully. Recent data showed solid gains in April retail sales, while consumer sentiment remains near its all-time high (Chart 4, panel 1). On the investment side, core durable goods orders were stronger than expected in April and the regional manufacturing PMIs that have been released so far in May (Philadelphia, New York, Richmond and Kansas City) have all increased (Chart 4, panel 2). Recent housing data have been more disappointing relative to expectations, but even here we continue to see steady growth in building permits and a continued contraction in outstanding supply. Supply increases typically precede a decline in construction activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Domestic Economy Looks Strong Chart 4Focus On Cyclical Sectors Candidate 2: The Financial Markets Even if U.S. economic growth is robust, it is conceivable that a sharp tightening of financial conditions - a falling stock market, widening credit spreads and/or an appreciating dollar - could cause the Fed to slow its pace of hikes. After all, the Fed would interpret a large enough tightening of financial conditions as a signal that economic growth will slow in the future. To assess this risk we turn to our Fed Monitor (Chart 5). Our Fed Monitor is a composite of many different variables that fall into one of three categories (i) economic growth, (ii) inflation and (iii) financial conditions. It is constructed in such a way that a reading above zero means the Fed should be tightening policy and a reading below zero means the Fed should be easing. Chart 5Fed Monitor Recommends Tighter Policy The bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that we have in fact seen a relatively large tightening of financial conditions since the equity market sold off in February. However, our overall Fed Monitor has barely ticked down, and remains solidly above zero. There is an important message here. The Fed can tolerate more tightening in financial conditions when economic growth and inflation are higher. When a similar tightening of financial conditions occurred in 2015, it did in fact drive our overall Fed Monitor below zero. This is because the economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor provided less of an offset (Chart 5, panels 3 & 4). Now, with stronger readings from those components, the Fed will need to see a much larger tightening of financial conditions before reacting. We will pay close attention to our Fed Monitor going forward for any signs that a sell-off in financial markets might be severe enough to spook the Fed. Another financial market signal that bears monitoring is the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). It is no secret that an inverted yield curve always precedes a recession, and the Fed could interpret a very flat curve as a signal that monetary policy is becoming restrictive. In fact, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said two weeks ago that: Chart 6Not Flat Enough To Worry The Fed I have had extended conversations with my colleagues about a flattening yield curve. It is my job to make sure that [yield curve inversion] doesn't happen. In contrast, the minutes from the May FOMC meeting reveal a more balanced tone from the committee as a whole. "Several" participants thought "it would be important to monitor" the slope of the curve, while "a few" thought that the slope of the curve could be less important this cycle because of several special factors. These factors include: depressed term premiums because of large central bank balance sheets and reductions in investors' estimates of the longer-run neutral real interest rate. Our sense is that the yield curve is a good economic indicator simply because it reflects market expectations about the path of the fed funds rate. When the curve is inverted, and long-maturity yields are below short-maturity yields, it means that investors expect rate cuts to occur in the future. In contrast, a very steep yield curve indicates that the market expects a large number of rate hikes. When the stance of monetary policy is perceived to be close to neutral, investors will expect very little future movement in the fed funds rate and the yield curve will be very flat.2 In an ideal world, the Fed will move the funds rate close to its neutral level by the time that inflation stabilizes around its 2% target. In other words, the Fed will not be overly concerned with a very flat yield curve as long as inflation is close to its target. A very flat curve will only worry policymakers if it coincides with below-target inflation, because that would suggest that the market does not believe that the Fed will hit its inflation goal. With inflation already close to the Fed's target, we don't think a flat yield curve will cause the Fed to turn dovish any time soon. Candidate 3: Foreign Economic Growth One final factor that could eventually cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes is weak foreign economic growth. Here we already see mounting signs of stress. Chart 7 shows that while the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator is the strongest it has been in several years, our Global Leading Economic Indicator excluding the U.S. has begun to contract. This divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is reminiscent of the 2014/15 period when the dollar came under strong upward pressure. Not surprisingly, the dollar is once again starting to appreciate (Chart 7, panel 2). Much like in 2014/15, a strengthening dollar is already putting pressure on Emerging Markets where CDS spreads are widening and currencies are weakening (Chart 7, bottom panel). As an aside, while USD-denominated Sovereign bond spreads have widened, they remain expensive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Turning back to U.S. monetary policy, the key reason the Fed might concern itself with weak foreign economic growth is that the resultant strengthening of the dollar will eventually cause financial conditions to tighten and domestic economic growth to slow. This is exactly what occurred in 2014/15, though unfortunately the Fed waited until the strong dollar culminated in a sell-off in equity and credit markets before it adopted a more dovish policy stance (Chart 9). We would once again expect the Fed to wait for divergent growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and the resultant stronger dollar) to be reflected in financial conditions indexes and domestic equity and credit markets before it responded by slowing the pace of hikes. Chart 7Global Growth Divergences##br## Are Back Chart 8Sovereigns Still##br## Expensive Chart 9Growth Divergences Led To ##br##Market Turmoil In 2014/15 Bottom Line: The Fed would slow its pace of rate hikes if the cyclical sectors of the U.S. economy started to slow, financial conditions tightened significantly, or if the slope of the yield curve moved close to zero while inflation was below the Fed's target. The most likely catalyst for the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy in the next 6-12 months is a persistent divergence between U.S. and foreign economic growth that leads to a stronger dollar and culminates in significantly tighter financial conditions, as in 2014/15. What Would Make The Fed Hike More Quickly? The most obvious factor that would make the Fed increase its pace of rate hikes to greater than 25 bps per quarter would be if inflation rose above its 2% target and continued to accelerate. It is unclear how much of an inflation overshoot the Fed is willing to tolerate before it increases the pace of hikes, but our sense is that it's fairly substantial. The Fed has gone out of its way in recent months to stress the "symmetric" nature of its 2% inflation target and, as long as inflation expectations remained well contained, we think the Fed would stick with its "gradual" rate hike pace as long as core PCE inflation is below 2.5%. Inflation pressures in the economy would have to change dramatically for core PCE inflation to break above 2.5%. Chart 10 shows two hypothetical scenarios for year-over-year core PCE inflation. One scenario where core PCE inflation rises 0.2% every month going forward, and another where it rises 0.15% every month. In the 0.2% per month scenario, year-over-year core PCE inflation eventually levels off at around 2.4%. In the 0.15% per month scenario it levels off at 1.8%. Monthly core PCE inflation has only printed above 0.2% seven times since 2015 (Chart 11), meaning that we would need to see a huge shift in the inflation data for it to start worrying policymakers. Chart 10How Much Overshoot Will Fed Tolerate? Chart 11Prints Above 0.2% Have Been Rare Another important factor that we have flagged in recent research is the price of gold.3 We noted that the gold price tends to rise when Fed policy eases and fall when it becomes more restrictive. We also observed that Fed policy can ease/tighten in two ways: The Fed can alter market expectations about the pace of rate hikes The market can revise its assessment of the equilibrium (or neutral) fed funds rate Chart 12Gold Has Led The Fed Notice that the decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 foreshadowed downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate, and that those estimates have leveled-off alongside the price of gold since then (Chart 12). It follows that an upside break-out in the price of gold would be a signal that monetary policy is becoming easier, and that current estimates of the equilibrium fed funds rate need to be revised up. This is another signal we are monitoring that could lead to a quicker pace of rate hikes from the Fed. Bottom Line: A significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target would cause the Fed to increase its pace of rate hikes, but the odds of this occurring during the next 6-12 months are low. An upside break-out in the price of gold would suggest that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised higher, and could lead to a more rapid pace of hikes. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In practice, the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields will lead to a slightly positive yield curve slope when monetary policy is perceived to be neutral. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The prospects for U.S. economic and earnings growth remain solid but overseas growth is rolling over. The U.S. economic surprise index is poised to turn negative but inflation surprise is headed the in the opposite direction. The Fed remains vigilant on financial stability issues. The minutes of the May FOMC meeting provided an update on the Fed's views of inflation, fiscal and trade policy. In addition, financial stability and the Fed's forward guidance were discussed. Feature Economic data released in recent weeks reinforce BCA's view that the U.S. economy is accelerating while the global economy is decelerating. Chart 1 (panel 1) shows that the index of leading economic indicators (LEI) is gaining strength in the U.S., but slowing in the rest of the developed economies (panels 2 through 6). However, the U.S. Purchasing Managers Index (PMI, solid line) is rolling over, along with the PMIs in the E.U., Japan, Canada and Australia, albeit from a high level. Still, the Treasury and currency markets are focused on the LEIs and not the PMIs, driving up both Treasury bond yields and the dollar (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Growth##BR##Stands Out Chart 2Treasury Yields And The Dollar##BR##Responding To Growth Differentials The fallout from political turmoil last week in both North Korea and Italy spilled over into U.S. financial markets, driving U.S. risk assets and Treasury yields lower. Of the two, the situation in Italy is the more significant threat to our view that the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio will continue to move higher this year. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service notes that while investors are right to be worried about a new populist government in Italy, slowing economic growth is an even bigger immediate problem for debt sustainability concerns.1 Our Geopolitical Strategy service's baseline expectation calls for the new coalition government in Rome to back off from its most populist proposals.2 However, this will first require the pain of higher bond yields. BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to climb as the Fed boosts rates more than the market expects and as U.S. domestic growth outpaces its global counterpart.3 BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service maintains that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. In addition, spread product returns should continue to beat Treasuries, but the window for outperformance is closing.4 Investors' positioning in Treasuries and our view that the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (CESI) may soon drop below zero,5 suggest that there is a near-term risk of a countertrend rally in Treasury prices. Assessing The Cycle BCA's view is that the next recession will be sparked by the Fed overtightening in 2019 and 2020 as it finds itself behind the curve on inflation. Chart 3 shows that the odds of a recession in the next 12 months are low. Moreover, the traditional recession signals we track are not flashing red (Chart 4). At 45 bps, the 10/2 Treasury curve remains positive (panel 2). BCA expects the 2/10 curve to remain around 50bps until the inflation breakevens are re-anchored between 2.3% and 2.5%. We anticipate that upward pressure on the short end from Fed rate hikes will be offset by the upward thrust of the breakevens on the long end.6 Panel 3 shows that the LEI crosses below zero when a recession is imminent. The April LEI rose by 6.42% year-over-year. Initial claims for unemployment insurance in the week ending May 18 were 17K below their mid-November 2017 reading. Panel 4 shows that a 6-month increase in unemployment claims of between 75,000 and 100,000 is associated with a recession. Chart 3Odds Of A Recession Remain Low Chart 4No Recession Signals Here Credit spreads also indicate that the economic expansion remains in place. Charts 5 and 6 show that the corporate bond market often warns of an approaching major top in the stock market and/or a recession. Spreads barely budged during February's spike in financial market volatility. Chart 5Credit Spreads On Both Investment Grade... Chart 6... And High Yield Debt Signal That The Expansion Has Legs Financial conditions remain supportive of above-potential growth in the final three quarters of 2018. The January peak in equity markets and troughs in investment- grade and high-yield spreads marked the recent zenith in BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI). Nonetheless, the FCI in the U.S. remains more expansionary than it was a year ago and our research7 shows that financial conditions lead the U.S. economy by six to nine months (Chart 7). As a result, U.S. economic growth is poised to accelerate even more in 2018. This will further push down the unemployment rate below NAIRU and ultimately force up wage and price inflation. Chart 7Lagged Effect Of Easier Monetary##BR##Conditions Will Boost Growth Bottom Line: The prospects for U.S. economic and earnings growth remain solid, aided by the lagged effect of easy financial conditions, the ongoing benefits of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act and other doses of fiscal stimulus enacted in the past six months. Moreover, several of the geopolitical risks that we flagged earlier this year have ebbed. However, as noted above, the political situation in Italy warrants investors' attention. Nonetheless, the period of synchronous global growth that lifted risk assets in 2017 and in early 2018 has ended. Chinese growth is slowing, and other emerging market economies and financial markets are under duress as U.S. rates escalate. Moreover, the U.S. economy is in the late part of the cycle. Lofty valuations implied that equity returns will be well below-average in the next five to seven years. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds for now. However, investors with longer horizons should begin to prepare for lower real returns in the 2020s after a recession early in that decade. Surprise Surprise Citi's Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative (Chart 8) after hitting a four-year high, 110 days ago, in late 2017. Since then, a colder and wetter winter and early spring across the U.S., coupled with elevated expectations after the tax bill, saw most economic data fall short of expectations. Chart 8Economic Surprise Poised To Move Lower Our late March 2018 report8 noted that since 2011, there were six other episodes when the CESI behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 96 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. Moreover, we stated in our March 2018 report that a trough in the Citigroup Economic Surprise reading may be a month or two away. Based on BCA's research,9 tactical investors should add to their risk positions as the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index bottoms and begins to climb. On the other hand, the inflation surprise index is about to turn positive for the first time since 2011. Chart 9 shows that the last time reports on the CPI, PPI and average hourly earnings consistently exceeded consensus forecasts was in late 2009 and early 2010. Moreover, from the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through to early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Typically these periods when inflation surprise is positive are associated with higher wage and compensation metrics and higher realized core inflation. Moreover, Chart 9 shows that sustained episodes where the inflation surprise index is above zero occurred when the economy was at full employment (panel 2) and when the Fed funds rate was above neutral (panel 3). The implication is that inflation indices are poised to move higher in the coming year, and prompt the Fed to continue to raise rates gradually at first, but then more aggressively starting in mid-2019. Nonetheless, inflation due to cyclical factors remains muted for now. Chart 10 shows that pro-cyclical inflation decelerated through March 2018, while acyclical inflation accelerated. Late last year we discussed this measure of inflation and its origins at the San Francisco Fed.10 Chart 9Inflation Surprise Vs.##BR##Realized Inflation And Slack Chart 10Noncyclical Sources Still##BR##Driving Inflation Lower Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data is not over. Treasury bond yields will likely dip as the CESI turns negative. However, the weakness in the economic data does not signal recession. We expect that the inflation surprise index will continue to grind higher, while unemployment dips further into excess demand territory and oil prices rise. After the CESI forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long credit and underweight duration. On The MOVE Both equity and bond market volatility (measured by the VIX and the MOVE indexes respectively) climbed in late January and early February, but have since eased (Chart 11). However, in the past 9 weeks, bond volatility surged relative to equity vol. Looking ahead, the subdued readings from the Chicago Board Options Exchange VVIX index, which measures the implied volatility of VIX options, indicate that the VIX can continue to head lower in the coming weeks. The implication is that bond-to-stock volatility ratio will move higher. Periods when bond volatility is rising faster than equity volatility are associated with turning points in the stock-to-bond ratio, and both real and nominal Treasury yields (Chart 12). That said, we are not making the case that the current upward thrust of the stock-to-bond ratio is about to change direction. Since 1990, both the stock-to-bond ratio and real bond yields rose in six of the eight periods when the MOVE/VIX rose; nominal yields climbed in all but one of these episodes. Moreover, small cap equities tend to outperform large when the MOVE index is increasing faster than the VIX. Chart 11Equity Vol Vs. Bond Market Vol Chart 12Is The MOVE/VIX Ratio On The Rise Again? Bottom Line: The increase in both equity and bond market volatility will impact the way the Fed conducts monetary policy in the coming years. Financial stability, or the lack thereof, is now top of mind among policymakers, and even more so as policy turns restrictive. The Fed's Third Mandate Revisited Chart 13FOMC Is Closely Monitoring##BR##Financial Stability BCA views financial stability as a third mandate11 for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Financial stability was discussed at the May meeting by both Fed staff and voting FOMC members, but it was not on the agenda at March's meeting. Nonetheless, we expect Fed Chair Jay Powell to follow the former chair's lead on this issue. At the May meeting, Fed staff continued to characterize financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system as moderate on balance. This overall assessment incorporated the staff's judgment that asset valuations remain elevated. Fed staff appraised vulnerabilities as low from financial sector leverage and maturity and liquidity transformation, low-to-moderate from household leverage, and elevated from leverage in the non-financial business sector (Chart 13). In May the Fed also provided an assessment of foreign financial stability for the first time since November 2017. The central bank's economists and analysts characterized overall vulnerabilities to foreign financial stability as moderate while highlighting specific issues in some foreign economies, including elevated asset valuation pressures, high private or sovereign debt burdens and political uncertainties. Fed staff made the same assessment in November 2017. In a report last month we highlighted research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco which found that a more restrictive monetary policy could pose risks to financial stability.12 Bottom Line: The Fed will remain vigilant about financial stability, but this means that rates will increase only gradually despite below-target inflation. The central bank must find the optimal pace to encourage employment and stable prices while guarding against financial excesses if policy stays too loose for too long. Counting The Minutes Inflation appeared to be a key topic at the May 1-2 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting.13 Moreover, at least a few members indicated that the Fed is willing to tolerate inflation above the central bank's 2% target. Trade and fiscal policy, the labor market, financial stability, the yield curve and the Fed's communication plan were also discussed. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's minutes.14 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper and Table 1) to the number of quantitative descriptors in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the FOMC's latest views. Table 1FOMC Minutes Rubric Tables 2 and 3 evaluate the Fed's latest thinking on inflation and its outlook. Most FOMC participants viewed the recent firming in inflation as reassurance that inflation is on track to hit the central bank's 2% target, while some thought inflation may overshoot. Several opined that the underlying inflation trend had changed little (Table 2). There was wide disagreement on the inflation outlook. Table 3 shows that many participants agreed that the Fed's goal was to return inflation to the 2% target. Many participants cited the tight labor and product markets, and stable inflation expectations, to support their views that inflation would remain near 2% this year. This approach is in line with BCA's inflation stance. A few participants worried about the impact of higher oil prices on inflation, but a similar number expressed concern that inflation would not stay at the Fed's 2% goal. Table 2FOMC Assessment Of Current Inflation Table 3FOMC Assessment Of Inflation Outlook There were extensive comments from both Fed staff and FOMC participants about the impact of fiscal policy and trade on the economy and inflation. Chart 14 presents the IMF's estimate of the impact of fiscal policy on the U.S. economy in the next few years. Fed staff continued to assume that the tax cuts would boost real GDP growth moderately in the medium term, but noted that fiscal policy may not provide a boost to growth if the economy is operating above full employment. Several FOMC participants noted the challenges in assessing the influence of fiscal policy on both the demand and supply side of the economy. We discussed the impact of fiscal policy on the supply side in last week's report.15 Chart 14U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Will##BR##Support Growth In '18 And '19 On trade, some FOMC participants noted that there was a wide range of outcomes for economic activity and inflation depending on what actions were taken by the U.S. and how U.S. trading partners responded. A few noted that the uncertainty around trade could dampen business sentiment and spending. In a recent report,16 we stated that the Fed's business and banking contacts mentioned either tariffs or trade policy 44 times in the latest Beige Book (April 18); there were only 3 mentions in the March edition. The FOMC also discussed factors contributing to the flat yield curve, citing the expected gradual rise of the federal funds rate, the downward pressure on term premiums from the Fed's still-large balance sheet as well as asset purchase programs by other central banks, and a reduction in investors' estimates of the longer-run neutral real interest rate. Notably, only a handful of participants said that the curve was not a reliable signal of future economic activity, while several endorsed the idea that an inverted curve indicated an increased risk of recession. On financial stability, a couple of participants noted that after the bout of financial market volatility in early February, the use of investment strategies predicated on a low-volatility environment may have become less prevalent, and that some investors are more cautious. However, they also noted that asset valuations across a range of markets and leverage in the nonfinancial corporate sector remained elevated relative to historical norms, leaving some borrowers vulnerable to unexpected negative shocks. Several noted that regulatory reform since the crisis had contributed to stronger capital positions, while only a few emphasized the need to build additional buffers in the financial system. The key takeaway from the FOMC's discussion on its communication policy is that the Fed may soon alter the forward guidance in its post-meeting statement to acknowledge that policy will not remain accommodative indefinitely. Bottom Line: The minutes of the May FOMC meeting indicate that the Fed is gearing up to raise rates again next month, but it is not signaling a more hawkish path than what is discounted. At the same time, the Fed is not trying to drive market expectations for the future path of short-term interest rates sharply higher. Fed officials noted that a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target would not be a disaster. In other words, the Fed is not willing to deviate from its path of "gradual" rate hikes. This is defined as one 25bps rate hike per quarter, which is mostly in line with current market pricing. We maintain our base case scenario: the FOMC will continue to monitor financial stability under Powell and raise rates four times in 2018. However, the FOMC will have to become more aggressive when realized inflation climbs and inflation expectations approach 2.3 to 2.5%. At that point another vol shock is likely, given that the Fed would target slower growth to curb inflation. This would be a negative signal for risk assets. Stay underweight duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny or Mostly Cloudy?", published May 22, 2018. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Growth Cures All Ills...For Now", February 21, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Swan Song", published May 18, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", published May 22, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", published October 31, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", published April 17, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear", published October 4, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting...", published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Solid Start", published January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits", published October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2018: Synchronized Global Growth: Drives U.S. Economy And Markets", published December 4, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", published July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Short-Term Caution Warranted", published April 23, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 13 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20180502.htm 14 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm 15 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Soon For Stagflation?", published May 21, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors", published May 7, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.