Developed Countries

U.S. airlines have been enjoying some of their highest profits in history, lifted by the collapse in oil prices and cheap financing and the market has rewarded them handsomely (bottom panel). However, the last year has seen a trend shift as excess profits have been eaten away at by the always-cutthroat competition. Further, the stringent labor cost control of the past decade will be difficult to maintain in such a profitable environment. Delta Air Lines (DAL) Q2 results offer some insight; unit revenues grew 2.5% while non-fuel unit costs grew 7.3%. The impact of these margin hits is likely to be magnified if, as we expect, oil prices recover. Overall, we think the sector's best days are receding into the contrails. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL -DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.

In our latest Weekly Report, we note our belief that the S&P 500 will hit the 3,000 mark before the end of the business cycle. We arrive at this conclusion three ways. First, we created a Dividend Discount Model (see Table 2 of our Weekly Report) that assumes a long term average dividend growth rate and the average corporate high yield interest rate; this model yields an S&P 500 value in excess of 2,900. Importantly, our model does not include share retirement which is currently greater than dividend payouts and would drive the SPX peak value higher. Second, we examined the S&P 500's sensitivity to EPS growth rates and forward valuation multiples. If we use the consensus 10.6% implied CAGR in S&P 500 EPS estimates and assign the current 12-month forward multiple as a starting point, our model estimates an S&P 500 value of just under 3,000 (see Table 3 of our Weekly Report). Lastly, we examined an SPX peak value assuming a contraction in the equity risk premium from its historically elevated level (middle panel) to 200bps. We deem this appropriate as it is still well in excess of previous cycles and justified by the sustained high ISM manufacturing index (bottom panel). Our analysis yields an S&P 500 value of slightly over 3,000. Net, while we think garden variety 5-10% corrections are all but inevitable, a peak S&P 500 value of 3,000 is likely before the next recession hits late in the decade.

Highlights The G20 summit highlighted our theme of multipolarity, which encourages global instability; U.S.-China tensions have resumed their escalation after a brief pause; The Middle East is still a "red herring" for investors this year, but tail risks are rising; Any negative impact on oil production from these risks should be minor; Iran stands to benefit; Egypt is a buy on the back of cyclical recovery and Saudi support. Feature For the first time in the history of G20 summits, the "sherpas" (emissaries) who prepared the event failed to reach any notable policy agreements. Allegedly, the only policy that the U.S. administration endorsed prior to the summit was women's entrepreneurialism, Ivanka Trump's pet project. Why should investors care? G20 meetings have always been abstract, retroactive (as opposed to proactive), and barely able to move the markets. But they have occasionally mattered. The summits in Washington D.C. (November 2008) and London (April 2009) set the agenda for economic stimulus and global financial regulatory reform that brought the world back from the brink of abyss. The London summit, in particular, set the stage for coordinated, global, fiscal policy that reflated the economy. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh summit, the G20 replaced the Western-dominated G8 as the premier economic governance platform. (The latter is now the G7 because of Russia's exclusion after annexing Crimea.) The idea behind the expanded forum was to give emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil a say in the global economic architecture. It was the forum's expansion that ultimately doomed its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no multilateral framework has ever successfully coordinated global affairs. Global stability has always been underpinned by hegemony, which is why we have warned our readers since 2011 that emerging global multipolarity - caused by America's relative geopolitical decline - would lead to instability.1 The press will inevitably blame President Trump's "America First" for the failures of the G20. We do not disagree, but there is more to it than just politics. "America First" is a natural political reaction to the reality of American geopolitical decline. It is also a reaction to nearly two decades of foreign policy decisions to commit massive amounts of U.S. hard and soft power to pursuing nation-building policies in the Middle East. As such, "America First" is a symptom, not the cause, of global multipolarity. The "Trump Doctrine" could indeed be highly destabilizing, if followed through to its logical conclusion.2 Ostensibly, President Trump seeks to renegotiate global security and economic arrangements that have taken advantage of American magnanimity. But it was America that initially designed these arrangements, at the height of its power in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, to secure its own interests. Institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank underpin, they do not undermine, American hegemony. Without these institutions, American allies will seek their own negotiated arrangements more freely and frequently with U.S. adversaries, slowly eroding Washington's global influence. Over the long term, the Trump Doctrine could also undermine the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency. The dollar's reserve currency status is a privilege that monetizes American geopolitical hegemony. America's allies are essentially already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets.3 Chart 1 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege."4 Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability of the market, and its deep liquidity, but also because the U.S. provides them with assurances of peace through security. If Washington raises barriers to its markets and becomes a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and thus diversify more rapidly. They could also be forced to diversify by new security guarantors, regional hegemons, and geopolitical bullies. Chart 1Exorbitant Privilege The concept of exorbitant privilege - and its economic benefits - cannot easily be explained to voters. What voters understand is that China's rapid industrialization has been accomplished at the cost of American manufacturing jobs. Candidate Trump successfully tapped into this angst during the campaign. President Trump, however, initially shied away from seriously applying the "America First" doctrine. The April Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago was hailed as evidence that fears of global protectionism were overblown and that the "globalist" camp of advisers in the White House were prevailing over the nationalists. As we expected, however, the détente did not last long. Over the past several weeks, China and the U.S. have clashed over several key issues: Taiwan: On June 29, the U.S. announced that it will sell $1.42 billion worth of arms to the island nation.5 Secondary sanctions: At the end of June, the Trump administration sanctioned a Chinese shipping company, bank, and two citizens for their ties to North Korea. Human rights: Also at the end of June, the U.S. State Department announced it would list China among the worst human trafficking offenders, which could trigger punitive actions and complicate trade negotiations in the future. Steel tariffs: President Trump asked the Department of Commerce back in April to study whether steel imports were harming national security, under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and a potential decision by Trump on tariffs is due within days. While China only accounts for 2% of U.S. steel imports, new tariffs could set in motion more protectionist measures that target additional industries. Sovereignty claims: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have made sojourns into disputed maritime areas. The navy conducted a "freedom of navigation" operation in the South China Sea in July, with USS Stethem steaming within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island. The air force also conducted separate missions sending B-1 bombers over the South China Sea, and over the Korean peninsula and East China Sea along with Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighter jets. This flurry of brinkmanship has largely emanated from Washington, not Beijing. As Trump's domestic political agenda stalled - with both health care and tax reform now in doubt - the administration has set its sights on the policy realm where the U.S. president has few constraints: foreign and trade policy. That is not to say that Beijing has not invited these actions. It has continued to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea and has failed to impose meaningful sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is clearly disappointed that its Mar-a-Lago summit failed to produce any tangible effect on these fronts, particularly with North Korea having launched a purported intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. It is the Trump administration itself, however, that is to be blamed for China's lack of enthusiasm. One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to bring into question Washington's "One China" policy. As we remarked at the time, this would have serious implications for Sino-American policies. Defending sovereignty is a core pillar of the Chinese Communist Party; it is part of its "creation myth," and this is nowhere truer than in regard to Taiwan. When Trump brought into question the "One China" principle, he signaled to Beijing policymakers that Washington is not to be trusted. North Korea is both formally and in practical terms a Chinese ally. Though the Xi administration evidently wishes that the North was not providing the U.S. with excuses to enhance the American position on the Korean Peninsula, nevertheless it is longstanding Chinese policy to avoid destabilizing the North Korean regime. A collapse, possibly followed by a unified Korean Peninsula, could benefit the U.S. in the region. In other words, China will pressure the North enough to encourage a new round of talks but not enough to risk fracturing the regime. Chart 2Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over What investors are seeing today is the impact of words - "signaling" to be technical - in geopolitics. To be fair to President Trump, he has not pursued a revolutionary foreign policy yet. However, his mere words - literally dithering on NATO's Article V and calling into question the "One China" policy - have pushed other global powers into realignment. The rest of the world takes Trump very seriously because he may one day act on his unorthodox policies, or because American voters may elect someone in the future who will. The likely result is further erosion of U.S. global influence. Notably, the U.S. president stood alone on several crucial global issues at the G20 summit in Germany, making it look more like a "G19" summit. American isolation makes sense from Trump's short-term, domestic-political vantage. In the long term, however, it accelerates the drift toward geopolitical multipolarity and thus encourages global instability. Over the near term, we are particularly concerned that Sino-American tensions could escalate and spill over into a trade war. Since Donald Trump's election, and particularly since the Mar-a-Lago summit, the market has largely priced out economic tensions between the two superpowers, with China-exposed S&P 500 equities outperforming the market (Chart 2). We would bet against the continuation of this trend. Lack of cooperation over North Korea is a sign that the Sino-American relationship is systematically broken. Middle East Update: Watch Power Vacuums In Iraq And Syria At the beginning of this year, we made a forecast that geopolitics in the Middle East would not be investment relevant.6 So far we are correct. However, we continue to worry that vacuums in Iraq and Syria - in the Sunni-dominated territories formerly occupied by the now-collapsing Islamic State - could become greater sources of instability in the region. We are particularly concerned about three potential flash points: North Iraq, North Syria, and East Syria. East Syria In East Syria, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - as well as its Lebanese Shia ally Hezbollah - has aggressively moved to establish control over the Syrian-Iraqi border. As indicated on Map 1, SAA forces have created a land-bridge through Islamic State territory to Tayyara on the Iraqi border. This has put SAA troops in close proximity to "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) forces operating in the southeast of the country. Map 1Syria's Army Has Created A Land-Bridge To Iraq The FSA was created by the U.S. and its allies. Its forces are trained by the U.S., and the U.S. Air Force provides cover for its territory. The recent downing of Syrian fighter jets and Iranian drones have occurred near the U.S. FSA base, which is based in the proximity of the FSA stronghold at Al Tanf. Without committing land troops, however, the best the U.S. can hope for is to limit SAA incursions into FSA-held territory. The push by SAA and Hezbollah to the Iraqi border creates an all-important land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. It allows Tehran to reinforce Assad's SAA and Hezbollah by land, rather than relying on sea routes - which can be intercepted by the U.S. and Israel's superior naval capabilities in the Mediterranean - or through air. Not only will Iran and Shia-dominated Iraq be able to supply Assad with weapons, but also with troops. After a five-year war of attrition, the main resource that has been depleted on all sides is manpower. A significant influx of "fresh blood" means that the power balance will shift more easily in favor of Assad. Following the collapse of the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq will be able to deploy significant resources from its Shia militias to Syria. This could be the game changer that ends the conflict in Syria in Assad's favor over the next 12 months. The SAA penetration to Tayyara has now set up the next target: Al Bukamal to the north and also on the Iraqi border. From there, the SAA will be able to round back deep into Islamic State territory and capture Deir ez-Zor. This will give Assad control over most of Syria's border with Iraq as well as the country's highway infrastructure. It will also pin the U.S.-backed FSA to a largely irrelevant corner of Syria. The success of Iranian and Russian-backed SAA in Eastern Syria is very important for the geopolitics of the region. By creating a land-bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean, Syrian forces have now opened up the possibility of one day hosting massive natural gas and oil pipeline infrastructure that would link natural gas from the Persian Gulf, developed jointly by Qatar and Iran, and oil from Iran and Iraq to European markets (Map 2). Map 2The Path Is Opening For Iranian Pipelines Through Syria Such an alternative route to Iranian energy exports would give Tehran an upper hand over Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. In a hypothetical conflict scenario between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, Tehran would be more willing to try to close shipping in the Straits of Hormuz if it possessed an alternative route for energy exports. This is clear to Saudi Arabia, which is why it has lashed out against Qatar in recent weeks. The main Saudi demand of Qatar is that it abandon its pro-Iranian foreign policy. It is becoming clear to Saudi Arabia that Iran's power is set to grow in the wake of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria. As such, Saudi Arabia is trying to tie loose ends in its own coalition, starting with Qatar. Despite the reported Trump-Putin ceasefire agreed at the G19, U.S. and Russian forces could still become entangled as their proxies battle in the strategic regions near the Syrian-Iraqi border. SAA troops have also begun to operate near Raqqa, where the Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. are currently encircling the Islamic State capital. Final stages of wars tend to be erratic and even more violent. As belligerents glimpse the end of conflict they rush to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin. This is effectively what is happening in East Syria and around Raqqa today. Northern Syria In the Kurdish dominated northern Syria, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have massively increased the territory under their control. Supported by the U.S., YPG have encircled Raqqa and will soon defeat the Islamic State in the North. Assad's SAA will concede Raqqa in order to move onto the more strategic Resafa and Deir ez-Zor, effectively abandoning northern Syria to the Kurds to focus on establishing the land-bridge with Iraq. Turkey, however, is not interested in conceding northern Syria to YPG. The latter are allied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. With SAA focused on controlling population centers and the Syrian-Iraqi border, northern Syria will descend further into Kurdish domination. This would give PKK militants a large territory from which to regroup and resupply operations in Turkey. It is therefore a real possibility that Turkey will invade YPG-controlled northern Syria as soon as the operations against the Islamic State end. This will put the U.S. into a difficult position. On one hand, Turkey is a NATO ally. On the other, the Kurds are informal U.S. allies. The YPG have fought valiantly against the Islamic State and are perhaps the group most deserving of thanks for the defeat of its so-called Caliphate. Northern Iraq In northern Iraq, a similar dynamic has emerged where the Kurds have benefited the most from the rise of the Islamic State (Map 3). Operations in Mosul will soon end the Islamic State's dominion over parts of Iraq, which will allow Iraqi forces to focus on two tasks. First, resupplying Assad's SAA with weapons and troops. Second, turning to Kurdish gains in the north, particularly in the city of Kirkuk. Map 3Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey Iraqi Kurds, for their part, have called an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. President Masoud Barzani will not necessarily proclaim an independent Kurdistan following the referendum. The exercise could be a bid to negotiate more autonomy with Baghdad or a pre-election ploy to secure a majority in upcoming general elections and bolster the eventual presidential bid of his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani (current Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan). Iraqi Kurds may be able to find some sort of an arrangement with Baghdad for greater autonomy. The problem is that both sides claim parts of the region. Kirkuk, for example, is not officially part of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Kurds see it as their ancient capital and thus seized it in June 2014 as a preventative move to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the Islamic State. Not only is Kirkuk a major Iraqi population center, but it is also a significant oil-producing region. Investment Implications Over the next several months, we would expect tensions in these three geographies to increase. Given the proximity of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and American forces, we would expect the probability of accidents to rise significantly. This could temporarily move the markets and assign some geopolitical risk premium to oil prices. However, investors should realize that the regions involved are not major producers of oil, aside from Iraqi Kurdistan where we do not expect large-scale warfare. As such, any effect on oil production would be a minor blip in the global supply. Over the long term, the clear winner in the region remains Iran. Bashar al-Assad, Iran's ally in Syria, will stay in power. It is also clear that the Sunni Islamic State Caliphate will disappear, giving back the Shia-dominated Iraqi government control over its territory. For Saudi Arabia, this is a reality that cannot be changed at the moment. As we have pointed out before, low oil prices are a constraint to war.7 They reduce government revenue and force leaders to focus on domestic stability. A major conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is therefore unlikely. However, Saudi Arabia will respond by building a Sunni alliance against Iran. With Syria and Iraq now in the Iranian sphere, the imperative for Saudi Arabia is to counter Iranian regional hegemony through alliances. Egypt will remain a clear beneficiary of this strategy. The country is already the Middle East's candidate for the "too big to fail" moniker. Its population, economy, demographics, and security challenges all make it the main candidate for chief regional security risk. As such, it will continue to receive support from the international community. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt is a way to diversify its security portfolio away from the aloof United States. As such, we would expect the Saudis to continue to prop up the Egyptian economy with loans and grants in return for being able to call on the Egyptian military in time of need. Given a cyclical recovery in Egypt, which BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy has recently elucidated, this creates a structural buying opportunity in the country's equity market.8 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 The closest the world ever got to a powerful and effective multilateral structure was the nineteenth-century "Concert of Europe," which kept general peace in Europe for a century (1814-1914), but at the cost of dividing up the rest of the planet into imperial spheres of influence where European states could play out their mercantilist rivalries. Ultimately, even that architecture crumbled as the British hegemony that underpinned it weakened after the 1870s. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive almost nothing for holding U.S. assets, while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 5 The deal is not particularly significant in a military sense, and it is smaller in value than the last deal in December 2015, but it still sends a signal that angers Beijing, which also expects more controversial deals to be forthcoming given the Trump administration's signals that it plans to strengthen the Taiwan alliance. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust?" dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Egypt: A Cyclical Recovery Amid Lingering Structural Challenges," dated June 20, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Out of the gate, our financials versus tech sector pair trade has caught fire, returning 6.2% in the last 2 weeks. This reflects the tightening of the historically wide relative market capitalization differential (second and third panels), as we expected. Despite the solid return since we put the trade on, we think we are in the early stages of an earnings-driven rotational correction, with greater gains ahead. Pricing power in financials has continued to strengthen at the expense of deflating tech selling prices (bottom panel) which should start closing the profit gap. We expect early validation of this thesis to begin this week with the opening of earnings season for financials on Friday. Net, investors should gain exposure to S&P financials using S&P tech as a source of funds.

Highlights Coordinated Hawkishness: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. ECB Taper Tantrum: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight Euro Area government bonds. Canada: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Feature A Regime Shift, Not A Regime Change Interest rate risk has returned with a vengeance in global fixed income markets over the past couple of weeks. A string of relatively hawkish policymaker comments has triggered a quick and sharp bond sell-off, as investors reprice the odds of what is looking now like a coordinated recalibration of global monetary policies. Longer-dated bonds have gotten pummeled as yield curves have bear-steepened in most countries, with 30-year government bond prices falling between -5% and -7% in a matter of days (Chart of the Week). With global growth looking very strong at the moment, policymakers are being forced to respond by looking to unwind some of the easing that took place after the crash in oil prices in 2014/15. With that deflation scare now firmly in the rearview mirror, central bankers are having to signal a move away from the emergency stimulus from 2015. The rapid yield responses seen so far suggest that the communication of that subtle policy shift - becoming "less dovish" rather than "more hawkish" - must be handled delicately, or else financial markets may riot and possibly short-circuit the current economic upturn. This yield surge has done very little to dampen investor enthusiasm for risk assets, so far. Equity prices and corporate credit spreads, both in the developed world and emerging markets (EM), have only moved modestly despite the large move in government bond yields (Chart 2). This suggests that the latter was most mispriced compared to the current solid pace of global economic growth. Chart of the WeekA Painful Repricing Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Unfazed With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that the decline in global bond yields in the spring was an outsized response to a few below-consensus data prints on U.S. economic growth and inflation. Importantly, the numbers in the U.S. are starting to improve again, as indicated by the strong jump in the ISM indices and employment (+220k) in June. Many of our most reliable leading indicators and models are all pointing to further acceleration in U.S. growth in the next few quarters (Chart 3). The U.S. inflation data continues to disappoint, both in terms of price indices and wage growth. Growth in Average Hourly Earnings has drifted lower since the most recent peak, while core PCE inflation is only 1.4%. The latest commentary from the Fed, including the minutes from the June FOMC meeting released last week, suggests that this downdraft in inflation should prove to be temporary and stronger growth should lead to faster inflation. We would agree with that assessment. The U.S. unemployment rate at 4.4% remains below most measures of full employment, while other reliable indicators of labor market tightness, such as the spread between the "jobs plentiful" and "jobs hard to get" components of the U.S. consumer confidence report, are also pointing to an eventual reacceleration of wages (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed Median CPI is hovering around 2.5%, well above the current 5-year/5-year forward cost of inflation compensation embedded in U.S. TIPS prices of 1.83% (middle panel). Furthermore, the Phillips Curve based core PCE inflation model developed by our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy is signaling a rebound of core PCE inflation back above 1.9% by year-end, in a scenario of no change in the unemployment rate or U.S. dollar from current levels (bottom panel). Chart 3U.S. Growth Will Rebound Chart 4U.S. Inflation Will Rise Our base case scenario for the Fed is that additional tightening will come in 2017. First through an announcement on starting the process of reducing the Fed's balance sheet, through "tapering" the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing bonds held by the Fed, at the September FOMC meeting. After that, the next rate hike will not be until December. This will allow the Fed to see more inflation prints to confirm its own expectation that inflation will soon rebound before delivering more policy tightening. Of course, if the next couple of inflation releases surprise to the upside, then perhaps a rate hike is possible at the September meeting alongside the announcement on the Fed's balance sheet (which is basically a done deal, at this point). For now, we see the Fed staying cautious, especially given the increasing number of FOMC members who are becoming concerned with the lack of U.S. inflation, according to the June minutes. As for the other major developed economy central banks, this "old-school" cyclical upturn is boosting both capacity utilization and pipeline inflation (Chart 5). Combined with the other measures that have been showing diminished economic slack, like unemployment rates and output gaps, this will give policymakers confidence in their own medium-term growth and inflation forecasts. This will also embolden central bankers to remove some policy accommodation. Our own Central Bank Monitors are indicating a need for tighter monetary policy in every major developed economy except Japan. That is confirmed by Taylor Rule estimates for interest rates. In Chart 6, we present simple Taylor Rule projections for the policy rate in the U.S., Euro Area, U.K., Japan, Canada and Australia. The formula takes potential GDP growth (OECD estimates) and then adds current realized inflation, ½ of the deviation of inflation from the central bank target and ½ of the output gap.1 We also show projections for the Taylor Rule over the next two years, using individual central bank forecasts for inflation and IMF projections for potential growth and the output gap. We then compare those Taylor Rule forecasts with the rate expectations priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves. Chart 5An "Old-School" Cyclical Upturn Chart 6Rates Too Low, According To The Taylor Rule The first point to note is that policy rates are below the Taylor Rule "equilibrium" level everywhere except Japan, where the 0% interest rate looks appropriate given the lack of actual inflation. Secondly, the Taylor Rule rates are projected to rise in the U.S., Euro Area, Japan and Canada, while remaining around current levels in the U.K. and Australia. Thirdly, the projected rates using Taylor Rule estimates are well above the current path of rates discounted in OIS curves. We do not expect central banks to deliver anywhere near the amount of tightening suggested by these simple Taylor Rules over the next couple of years. Policymakers will likely tolerate some degree of higher realized inflation to ensure that inflation expectations can return to, and sustainably stay at, central bank target levels. This means keeping interest rates below equilibrium levels for as long as possible. However, if central banks believe their own current inflation forecasts (which we have used in our Taylor Rule estimates), then policy rates do have room to move higher without becoming restrictive (i.e. above the Taylor Rule estimates). The markets clearly disagree with these Taylor Rule projections, with much lower OIS rates expected in the next few years. The markets may turn out to be correct. At the moment, however, the gap between the Taylor Rule rate forecasts and market pricing is too large, which suggests there is additional scope for bond yields to rise. Even if central banks ignore their own forecasts of higher inflation and keep rates on hold, this will put upward pressure on bond yields via higher inflation expectations. In other words, the path of least resistance for bond yields is up - at least until there is a major financial market event, like a big pullback in equity prices or widening of corporate bond spreads. Yet until there is evidence that global growth is rolling over and decelerating, a "risk-off" event like that is unlikely. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure, and overweight allocations of corporate debt to government bonds, in the next 3-6 months. Watch the path of leading economic indicators before looking to reverse those positions. Bottom Line: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. If It Walks Like A Tantrum And Talks Like A Tantrum ... The spike in Euro Area bond yields since June 26th has raised concerns that another bond "tantrum" is unfolding, similar to U.S. Treasury sell-off in 2013 and the German Bund sell-off in 2015. In both cases, bond yields jumped rapidly as investors repriced the outlook for central bank policy. The recent comments from the European Central Bank (ECB) are signaling that a change in its asset purchase program, which is set to end on December 31st, is highly likely and were the trigger for the backup in European yields. We have already shown in previous reports how the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield has been following the same directional path as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield in the months leading up to the 2013 Taper Tantrum.2 We benchmarked the two markets for the peak in our Months-to-Hike indicator for the timing of the first rate hike priced into OIS curves. In Chart 7, we show the same comparison for the various slopes of yield curves for U.S. Treasuries and German government bonds. Again, the German curve is following the Fed Taper Tantrum experience, which implies more bear-steepening pressure on yields over the rest of 2017. In Chart 8, we show a similar "cycle-on-cycle" comparison of German bonds today compared to the spring of 2015 during the Bund Tantrum episode. That sell-off took place over a much shorter time horizon than the U.S. Taper Tantrum, with the entire sell-off condensed to just over a month. The current backup in German yields looks to be following a similar pattern to the Bund Tantrum, suggesting that this move could take the benchmark 10-year yield back to 1% before it is done. Chart 7Taper Tantrum 2.0?... Chart 8...or Bund Tantrum 2.0? There are major differences between today and the 2015 episode - European economic growth is much faster, the output gap is narrower, and realized inflation is higher than it was two years ago (bottom two panels). The 2015 Tantrum was triggered by two events: a rise in European inflation back above 0% that led to a (misguided) belief among investors that the ECB, which had just started its asset purchase program, would quickly look to exit that program; a massive unwind of long positions in core European bond markets, made worse as speculators who were betting on a reversal of the initial jump in Bund yields got stopped out as yields continued to climb. Roll the tape to 2017, and the growth and inflation backdrop is much different. Now, the ECB is indeed talking openly about exiting/tapering its asset purchase program, supported by a solid European growth backdrop. There is likely less speculative positioning in European markets given the painful experience of the Bund Tantrum. However, with the ECB now owning significant shares of European bonds after two years of steady buying, the potential for a jump in yields driven by less-liquid markets may still be there. Net-net, the current Bund sell-off has additional upside when compared to the previous Tantrums, suggesting the Bund yield could rise to 1% before this move is done. Watch the performance of European equities and the euro for signs that the pain trade in Bunds could stall before 1%. If equities break lower or the Euro breaks higher (or both), the ECB commentary about the timing of a taper could take a more dovish turn. This is not our base case, though. Bottom Line: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight European government bonds. Move To An Underweight Stance On Canada This week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) meets to determine the next move for Canadian monetary policy. For the first time since 2010, that move will likely be a rate hike. The Canadian economy is booming, and the strength is starting to bump up against capacity constraints. The strong performance of real GDP growth in Q1 (+3%) looks to be followed up by a similar growth rate in Q2. The BoC's latest 2017 Business Outlook Survey made for great summer reading, as expectations for sales, capital spending and employment all remained quite strong (Chart 9). Firms were reporting that an increasing share of capital spending intentions were for the purposes of increasing capacity to accommodate stronger demand, a sign that Canadian businesses are becoming more optimistic that the economic upturn is sustainable. Hiring intentions hit the highest level ever recorded in the Survey, with firms also reporting an increase in employment to meet up with stronger demand. Current Canadian inflation rates remain subdued, but a pickup in output prices is expected over the next 12 months according to the Business Outlook Survey (bottom panel). A net positive number of respondents reported capacity constraints and labor shortages for the first time in the three years that those questions have been asked as part of the Survey. The BoC's growth forecasts are clearly too low and will likely be revised upward at this week's policy meeting, when a new Monetary Policy Report will be presented. This will likely be the reason for a rate hike to either be delivered this week, or strongly hinted at for the next policy meeting. Given the recent comments from BoC Governor Stephen Poloz and other BoC officials discussing the improving health of the economy and the need to "take back" the 50bps of rate cuts in 2015 as oil prices were collapsing, a rate hike is the more likely outcome this week. Already, the markets have moved to price in a more hawkish BoC, with a full 75bps of hikes expected over the next 12 months. This has helped out bearish Canadian rates trades in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio (see Page 15 and Chart 10), which were positions that benefitted from a stronger Canadian economy and more hawkish BoC. With Canadian policy rates still well below equilibrium (see our Taylor Rule estimates shown earlier), and with leading economic indicators still pointing towards accelerating Canadian economic growth in the coming quarters, the case for the BoC to leave rates at these current depressed levels is not a strong one. Chart 9A Robust Canadian##BR##Growth Upturn Chart 10Sticking With Our Winning##BR##Tactical Canadian Trades We see the recent underperformance of Canadian government bonds as the start of a more prolonged trend, thus we are opening up a new strategic position in our model bond portfolio: cutting our Canada country allocation to underweight (2 out of 5). As Canada is only a small part of our benchmark index (only 1%), we are increasing our U.S. exposure as an offset to our lower Canadian weighting. This will not change our below-benchmark allocation to U.S. Treasuries, while making our new position a more explicit bet on additional widening of the Canada-U.S. bond spread. Chart 11Canada Rates Strategy Summary:##BR##Move To Underweight If the economy improves enough to continue absorbing economic slack and put upward pressure on inflation, both realized and expected, then the potential for higher Canadian yields and a flatter Canadian curve - as the BoC becomes even more hawkish - will also increase (Chart 11). One huge caveat to this trade is the state of the Canadian housing market. Even a small move in policy interest rates could have a huge impact on the demand for Canadian housing and the health of Canadian household finances. A recent private-sector survey showed that 70% of Canadian homeowners could not manage even a 10% rise in their interest payments.3 Given the extreme valuations in the Canadian housing market, and some of the recent macro-prudential measures taken to deter speculation in the booming Vancouver and Toronto markets, there is potential for a larger housing downturn after a few BoC rate hikes. This will not prevent the BoC from normalizing rates, but if the housing market responds poorly and there is a spillover into concerns about the state of Canadian banks, then any backup in Canadian bond yields will be short-lived. This is a risk and not our base case over the next year, however. Bottom Line: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Tactical Trade Update We have been recommending a position in our Tactical Overlay Table since March to position for additional Fed rate hikes, shorting the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in one more 25bp increase in the funds rate by year-end, there is no longer much potential for further gains in this trade. We are closing the position this week, taking a tiny profit of +1bp. Chart 12Roll Our Short Fed Funds##BR##Futures Trade To July 2018 Looking further out, we now see an attractive new opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for only 32bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 12), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. We are opening the new trade today, shorting the July 2018 contract. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We show the inflation gap as the difference between realized inflation and the inflation target, using the actual inflation rate that the central bank is targeting. This could be headline inflation, as in the U.S. and Euro Area, or core inflation, as in Japan. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-debt-truth-unexpected-expenses-could-spell-big-trouble-for-millennial-homeowners-623825354.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

REITs have marked time year-to-date, but recently operating conditions have downshifted a notch. Three key drivers argue for lightening up exposure on this newly formed S&P GICS1 sector. First, REITs have been unable to materially benefit from the 50bps fall in the 10-year Treasury yield from the mid-December peak to the mid-June trough. As the economy recovers from the first quarter lull, Treasury yields will resume their advance. This is a net negative for the fixed income proxy real estate sector (top panel). Second, real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still. The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure (middle panel). Finally, according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback (bottom panel). Net, we are trimming the niche S&P real estate sector to neutral and concurrently removing it from the high-conviction overweight list.

Energy equities are down roughly 20% year-to-date versus the broad market, driven by rising U.S. shale oil production, inventory accumulation, and investor doubts about whether all nations will comply with OPEC's mandated production cuts. There are tentative signs that this relative performance bear phase is drawing to a close. Three main drivers support our modestly sanguine view of energy stocks. First, the long term inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and the commodity complex has been re-established; global growth suggests that a tightening interest rate cycle is brewing which should be supportive to energy stocks (top panel). Second, the steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing signs of fatigue with Baker Hughes reporting flattening growth in domestic oil rig count; At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely (middle panel). Finally, our S&P energy sector Valuation Indicator has gravitated back to the neutral zone (bottom panel). Overall, we are upgrading to an above benchmark allocation in the S&P energy index.

Highlights Duration: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: Spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year, though we would be inclined to view a Fed-driven back-up in spreads as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Bank bonds also offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Feature Chart 1Synchronized Global Selloff The bond selloff is now two weeks old. What began as a reaction to perceived hawkish policy shifts from central banks outside of the U.S. - the European Central Bank in particular - is now morphing into a selloff built on optimism about U.S. growth. Needless to say, we think the recent bearish price action has further to run. Global participation makes it more likely that the weakness in U.S. Treasuries will persist because it prevents the dollar from strengthening as yields move higher (Chart 1). In recent years, most U.S. bond selloffs have been met with an appreciating exchange rate. The stronger dollar then caused investors to lower their U.S. growth expectations, and capped the upside in yields. We view the dollar's current stability as a bearish signal for U.S. bonds. But it has not just been non-U.S. factors driving the uptrend in yields. Last week's positive ISM and employment figures are ushering in renewed optimism about U.S. growth. We also think that U.S. growth is poised to bounce back in the second half of the year, and the Fed is inclined to agree. The Fed's median projection calls for one more 25 basis point rate hike before the end of the year, and we also expect the committee to announce the run-off of the balance sheet in September. With the market still only priced for 15 bps of hikes between now and year-end, there remains scope for further upside surprises. Of course, this forecast for balance sheet run-off in September and another rate hike in December hinges on a second-half snapback in growth, continued strength in labor markets and a rebound in core inflation. Growth Is On The Way Although GDP growth averaged just 1.75% during past two quarters, all signs suggest that the next two quarters will be much stronger. As was mentioned above, both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM surveys delivered strong readings in June. The manufacturing ISM came in at 57.8 and the non-manufacturing survey came in at 57.4, both signal stronger GDP growth in the coming months (Chart 2). The crucial new orders-to-inventories figure calculated from the manufacturing survey is also displaying remarkable strength (Chart 2, bottom panel). We can also infer the current trend in growth from the employment and productivity data. In fact, aggregate hours worked - a combination of total employment and average weekly hours - plus labor productivity growth is more or less equivalent to GDP (Chart 3). After last week's payrolls report, aggregate hours worked are now growing at 1.99% year-over-year. If we combine that growth rate with quarterly productivity growth of 0.7%, the average since 2012, we get a tracking estimate of just below 2.7% for GDP growth. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model also currently expects that second quarter growth will be 2.7%. Chart 2PMIs Point To Stronger Growth... Chart 3...As Does The Labor Market Labor Markets: Watching The Participation Rate Last week's jobs report showed that the economy added 222k jobs in June, and that the prior two months were also revised higher. This pushed the 3-month moving average up to +180k jobs per month, right in line with the +187k jobs per month averaged in 2016. However, despite robust payroll gains, the unemployment rate actually ticked higher in June. This is because many previously sidelined workers re-entered the labor force, pushing the labor force participation rate up to 62.8%. Going forward, for the Fed to have confidence that wage growth and inflation will continue to rise, the unemployment rate will have to remain under downward pressure (Chart 4). As long as the labor force participation rate remains flat (or declines) this should be relatively easy to achieve. We calculate that the economy needs to add just above 117k jobs per month for the unemployment rate to continue falling. However, if we assume a higher labor force participation rate of 63.2%, we would need to add 195k jobs per month, a much higher hurdle.1 We detailed the main drivers of the labor force participation rate in a recent report,2 and while we do not see much potential for a significant increase in the participation rate, its trend is critical for the monetary policy outlook and should be monitored closely going forward. Inflation: Is The Fed Too Sanguine? The most important question for policymakers is whether inflation will rebound in the second half of the year. While the Fed will probably start winding down its balance sheet in September no matter what, another rate hike in December is likely contingent on core inflation showing some signs of strength in the next few months. We have previously written3 that if the Fed were to proceed with a December rate hike in the face of low and falling inflation, the market would start to price in a "policy mistake" scenario. The yield curve would flatten, credit spreads would widen, TIPS breakevens would narrow and long-dated Treasury yields could even decline. However, we do expect that core inflation will trend higher in the coming months, mostly driven by strength in the core services (excluding shelter and medical care) component. That component is historically the most sensitive to tight labor markets and rising wage growth (Chart 5). Chart 4Falling Unemployment Rate = ##br##Rising Inflation Chart 5A Boost From Import##br## Prices Is Coming Although it is unlikely to be a long-run driver of inflation, the core goods component also has some upside in the coming months in response to recent dollar weakness and rising non-oil import prices (Chart 5, bottom 2 panels). Investment Strategy Chart 6Too Few Hikes In The Price We think U.S. growth and inflation are poised to snap back during the second half of the year, probably by enough for the Fed to deliver another hike before year-end. We therefore continue to recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. We have also been advising clients to hold short positions in the January 2018 fed funds futures contract since March 21.4 That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15 bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in a 25 bps increase in the funds rate, there is not much potential for further gains in this trade. We close this position, booking a small profit of +1 bp. Looking further out, we now see an attractive opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 32 bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 6), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. Bottom Line: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: When Good News Is Bad News Chart 7High Risk Of A Near-Term Selloff Renewed optimism on U.S. growth and inflation could ironically pose a problem for credit spreads, at least in the very short term. As we have often discussed in the context of our Fed Policy Loop,5 hawkish shifts in Fed policy tend to result in wider credit spreads and tighter financial conditions more broadly. Fortunately, these periods are usually short lived. Once financial conditions tighten, the Fed backs away from its hawkish stance, allowing financial conditions to ease once again. An extreme example of this dynamic is the 2014/15 selloff in credit markets. Of course, the plunge in oil prices and related stress in the energy sector was the chief catalyst, but what is often overlooked is that Fed rate hike expectations were also quite elevated during that period (Chart 7). It is the combination of stress in the energy sector and unsupportive Fed policy that resulted in the prolonged rise in spreads. A more benign example is the price action from this past March. Junk spreads widened from 344 bps on March 2 to 406 bps on March 22, as rate hike expectations ramped up heading into the March FOMC meeting. Ultimately, this period of spread widening represented a buying opportunity in credit markets. It is a March 2017 style selloff that we see as quite likely in the coming months as growth recovers by just enough to give the Fed cover for another rate increase. Bottom Line: Credit spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year. But with inflation and inflation expectations still well below target, the Fed will ultimately be forced to remain supportive. We would therefore view any period of Fed-driven weakness in credit markets as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Still A Strong Buy The Federal Reserve released the results of its annual bank stress tests last month and for once it did not object to the capital plans of any of the 34 participating bank holding companies, a recognition of the fact that banks have dramatically boosted their capital ratios since the first round of stress tests in 2009 (Chart 8). For the most part bank profit growth has also outpaced debt growth during this period, with the exception of last year when profit growth turned negative and debt growth surged (Chart 8, panel 2). A large portion of last year's increase in debt growth was likely a response to the new Total Loss Absorbing Capital (TLAC) regulations which require banks to issue a specified minimum amount of securities that can be easily written off in case of bankruptcy. This includes capital and long-term unsecured debt. Regardless, bank debt growth has already fallen back close to zero and we see upside for bank profits in the next 6-12 months. Meanwhile, non-financial corporate profits have had a much more difficult time outpacing debt growth in recent years (Chart 8, bottom panel). Bank Profits On The Rise A number of forward looking loan growth indicators suggest that credit and capital formation are on an upward trajectory (Chart 9). Our U.S. Equity Strategy service's proprietary Capex Indicator,6 consumer and business confidence, manufacturing new orders and our own C&I loan growth model all point to accelerating loan growth in the coming months. Net interest margins also have scope to widen. A recent blog post from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York7 showed that net interest margins are sensitive to both the level of interest rates and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 10). Lower rates and a flatter curve have both compressed margins in recent years. In addition, net interest margins tend to narrow when banks take less risk on the asset side of their balance sheets, we proxy this by showing banks' risk-weighted assets as a percent of total assets (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 8Bank Health Still Improving Chart 9Loan Growth Will Accelerate Chart 10A Higher, Steeper Curve Will Help NIMs Going forward, higher rates and a steeper yield curve8 will apply widening pressure to net interest margins. Similarly, risk-weighted assets have already risen considerably as a fraction of total assets and will increase further as the Fed starts to drain reserves from the banking system. Bank Bonds Are Still Cheap The truly remarkable thing is that even though banks have been raising capital while the non-financial sector has been taking on leverage, bank spreads still look attractive compared to most non-financial sectors after adjusting for credit rating and duration (Chart 11). This is true for both senior and subordinated bank debt. As can be seen in Chart 11, senior bank debt has a low duration-times-spread (DTS) compared to the overall index. This means that it acts as a "low-beta" sector, underperforming the investment grade benchmark during rallies and outperforming during selloffs. Conversely, subordinate bank bonds are a high-DTS sector. They tend to outperform during rallies and underperform during selloffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* LegendCorporate Sector Abbreviations Chart 12Add "Beta" With Subordinate Bank Debt While we strongly recommend grabbing the extra spread available in both senior and subordinate bank debt relative to other similarly risky alternatives, subordinate bank bonds look particularly attractive in the current environment. This is because they both add some pro-cyclical risk ("beta") to a corporate bond portfolio and offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky bonds. Bottom Line: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are also likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Meanwhile, bank bonds still offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Remain overweight both senior and subordinate bank debt. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 These calculations assume population growth of 0.08% per month, or 1% per year. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Unfazed", dated June 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/06/low-interest-rates-and-bank-profits.html 8 For further details on the case for a bear-steepening yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The energy bear market is drawing to a close. Lift exposure to above benchmark. Firming refining operating conditions, at the margin, suggest that it no longer pays to underweight this energy sub-group. Book gains and lift to neutral. Softening profit fundamentals are weighing on the real estate outlook. Trim REITs to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Energy - Lift to overweight. S&P Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing - Upgrade to neutral, lock in profits of 14.3%. S&P Real Estate - Trim to neutral and remove from high-conviction overweight list. Table 1 Feature Equities wrestled to hold on to gains last week, fighting a spike in geopolitical tensions, synchronized global central bank hawkish rhetoric and sector rotation. Investors continued to shed tech stocks in favor of financials, pushing our recently initiated long financials/short tech pair trade return near double digits. Our view remains that a rotational correction is the dominant market theme. Nevertheless, on the eve of earnings season, profits will soon take center stage and serve as a catalyst for the overshoot equity phase to resume. Our sense is that before the end of the business cycle, there are high odds that the S&P 500 will hit the 3,000 mark. That does not mean it will be a straight line advance from here. Garden variety 5-10% corrections are all but inevitable. Rather, our point is that before the next recession hits late in the decade, the SPX can attain 3,000. How did we come up with this figure? We derived the S&P 500's peak cycle value using three different methods: Dividend Discount Model (DDM) Forward P/E and EPS growth sensitivity analysis Equity Risk Premium (ERP) Table 2SPX Dividend Discount Model Table 2 shows our DDM on the S&P 500. It assumes healthy dividend growth in 2017 and 2018. Our expectation of a 2019 recession drives a steep decline in dividends that year, followed by a slow climb in 2020 and 2021, in line with the 2009-2011 experience (Chart 1). 2022 is our terminal year when dividend growth settles at 6.6%, close to the long-term average. Our discount rate assumes a 3.2% 10-year Treasury yield and a 5% equity risk premium (the past decade's average, Chart 2). This discount rate mirrors the historical average corporate junk bond yield. This valuation model delivers an S&P 500 value of 2904. Chart 1Joined At##br## The Hip Chart 2FX10 ERP And The Economy##br## Are Inversely Correlated Alternatively, we examine the S&P 500's sensitivity to EPS growth rates and forward valuation multiples. If we use the street's 160.8 (or 10.6% implied CAGR) S&P 500 2019 EPS estimate and assign the current 12-month forward multiple as a starting point, Table 3 shows an S&P 500 value of just under 3,000. Downside risks look limited. Using this EPS forecast, even a 2-turn multiple contraction results in the S&P 500 appreciating 10% from here. Table 3SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity Lastly, a conservative ERP analysis reveals that SPX 3,000 is a realistic peak cycle estimate. Our assumptions include: a 200 bps ERP, a 3.2% 10-year Treasury yield and 160.8 SPX EPS. These assumptions result in an S&P 500 value of slightly over 3,000. How do we justify a decline in the ERP from its current level of 338 bps to our assumed 200 bps? G10 central banks are no longer putting out GFC-related fires; in fact, a slew of them are briskly turning from dovish to hawkish following the Fed's lead (Chart 3). As a result, a sustained decline in the ERP should follow as interest rates rise. Chart 3G10 Central Banks Map Chart 4Negative Correlation Is Re-Established The bottom panel of Chart 2 drives this point home. Since the history of SPX forward EPS data, the year-over-year change in the ERP has been almost perfectly inversely correlated with the ISM manufacturing index, i.e. an improving economy is synonymous with a receding ERP and vice versa. Lastly, keep in mind that a 200 bps ERP is still significantly higher than the 80 bps mean ERP that prevailed in the 1998-2007 decade (middle panel, Chart 2). The depreciating greenback is another source of support for our SPX 3,000 view. The yearlong positive correlation between the U.S. dollar and commodities has likely come to an end and the three plus decade inverse correlation has been re-established (Chart 4). As the cycle matures and enters its late stages, commodities and resource-related equities tend to pick up steam as profits rebound. Even energy stocks may catch a bid. Buy Energy Stocks... Energy equities are down roughly 20% year-to-date versus the broad market. In fact, the energy sector has broken down to a level last seen in 2004, when oil traded near $30/bbl (Chart 5). The three main culprits have been rising U.S. shale oil production, inventory accumulation, and investor doubts about whether all nations will comply with OPEC's mandated production cuts. While going overweight the energy space has been a "widow maker" trade recently, we are now tempted to take a punt on the S&P energy sector from the long side. There are tentative signs that this relative performance bear phase is drawing to a close. Three main drivers support our modestly sanguine view of energy stocks. First, as we mentioned above, the inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and the commodity complex has been re-established after a one-year hiatus. Synchronized global growth suggests that a corresponding tightening interest rate cycle is brewing (Chart 3). Thus, there are high odds that a number of G10 central banks will hike rates later this summer or early this fall, now that the Fed has paved the path.1 As long as the greenback drifts lower, even energy stocks should catch a bid (Chart 6). Chart 5Crude Oil... Chart 6...And The Dollar Say Buy Energy Stocks Second, on the domestic operating front, the steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing signs of fatigue. Baker Hughes reported the first weekly decline in 24 weeks in the oil rig count for the week ending June 30th. At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely. Encouragingly, Cushing crude oil inventories are contracting on a year-over-year basis and OECD oil stocks appear poised to contract in late autumn/early winter (Chart 7). Predicting OPEC's compliance is tricky. However, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service believes that little to no cheating will occur and in a worst case scenario Saudi Arabia will step in and curtail production were Libya and/or Iraq to pump oil above quota. Finally, our S&P energy sector Valuation Indicator has gravitated back to the neutral zone. Technicals are also washed out with our Technical Indicator breaching one standard deviation below its historical mean, a level that typically heralds a reversal (Chart 8). Recent anecdotes that the sell-side is throwing in the towel on their bullish oil forecasts for the remainder of the year are also contrarily positive. Chart 7Improving Supply Dynamics Chart 8S&P Energy Unloved And Fairly Valued Our newly introduced S&P energy sector relative EPS model encapsulates this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop (Chart 9). Simultaneously, the budding recovery in our S&P energy Cyclical Macro Indicator also signals that profits should best those of the overall market (second panel, Chart 8), giving us comfort to lift the S&P energy sector to a modest overweight position. ... As Refiners Are No Longer Cracking Under Pressure We are executing the upgrade to overweight in the broad energy sector via booking gains of 14.3% since inception in the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing sub-group and lifting exposure to neutral from underweight. It no longer pays to remain bearish on the pure play downstream energy business. Back in late September 2015, when we turned negative on refiners, we were anticipating a cyclical earnings downturn on the back of a refined product glut in this low margin / high volume industry. Fast forward to 2017 and that bearish profit view has materialized as relative EPS have fallen by roughly 60 percentage points from the most recent peak, and have only lately managed to stabilize (Chart 10). Chart 9EPS Model Waves Green Flag Chart 10Refining Profit Contraction Is Over If relative EPS have indeed troughed, then relative performance should soon find a bottom. Relative profit fortunes move with the ebb and flow of gasoline consumption. The latter is on the cusp of expanding for the first time since last November, heralding the same for relative profitability (bottom panel, Chart 10). Industry shipments tell a similar story. After recently bottoming at levels similar to those reached during the GFC, refinery shipments have staged a mini V-shaped recovery (top panel, Chart 11). Crack spreads have not collapsed to razor thin levels as the nearly eliminated Brent/WTI spread would suggest, but have remained resilient in the high-teens per barrel (third panel, Chart 11). Three forces are likely in play. First, not only is domestic gasoline demand underpinning refining margins, but petroleum products are also finding their way into foreign markets with net exports running at over 3 million bbl/day (bottom panel, Chart 11). Second, the U.S. dollar selloff since mid-December is making U.S. refined products more competitive in global markets. Finally, crude oil inventories are nearly 40% higher than gasoline inventories. Lower industry feedstocks represent a boost to refining margins (third, Chart 11). Nevertheless, we refrain from turning outright bullish on refiners. Refinery production hit all-time highs recently, refinery runs are climbing steadily and utilization rates are running hot north of 90%. Tack on, historically high refined products inventories and rising industry capacity growth and the profit backdrop darkens (Chart 12). Chart 11Three Positives... Chart 12...But Do Not Get Carried Away Netting it out, we expect a balanced refining profit outlook in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: Upgrade the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index (PSX, VLO, TSO, MPC) to neutral and lock in profits of 14.3%. This also pushes the S&P energy index to an above benchmark allocation. Downgrade REITs We are making space for the energy sector upgrade to overweight via trimming the niche S&P real estate sector to neutral and concurrently removing it from the high-conviction overweight list. REITs have marked time year-to-date, but recently operating conditions have downshifted a notch. Three key drivers argue for lightening up exposure on this newly formed S&P GICS1 sector. First, REITs have been unable to materially benefit from the 50bps fall in the 10-year Treasury yield from the mid-December peak to the mid-June trough. As the economy recovers from the first quarter lull, Treasury yields will resume their advance. This is a net negative for the fixed income proxy real estate sector (top panel, Chart 13). Second, real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still. The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure (Chart 13). Worrisomely, credit quality in select commercial real estate (CRE) segments is deteriorating at the margin. The bottom panel of Chart 13 shows that retail and office delinquency rates have taken a turn for the worse, and represent a yellow flag. Finally, according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. In fact, if one excludes the GFC spike, the tightening in CRE lending standards is near the two previous recessionary highs. If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback (Chart 14). Chart 13Time To Move To the Sidelines Chart 14Conflicting Signals Chart 15 puts the CRE price appreciation in historical perspective. Currently, CRE prices are on track to climb to two standard deviations above the long-term trend. Such exuberance is a cause for concern as it has historically marked the beginning of a corrective phase in CRE prices. Nevertheless, there are some positive offsets that prevent us from throwing in the towel in the S&P real estate sector. The tight labor market and accelerating industrial production explain the reacceleration in our REITs Demand Indicator, while the recent selloff in the bond market is a modest offset. If CRE appetite remains upbeat, this in turn suggests that CRE prices have a bit more room to run before reaching a cyclical peak (bottom panel, Chart 14). In addition, compelling relative valuations and washed out technicals argue against becoming overly bearish on REITs (Chart 16), as some of the bad news is already reflected in relative share prices. Chart 15An Historical Perspective Chart 16Positive Offsets Bottom Line: Trim the S&P real estate sector to neutral and remove it from the high-conviction overweight list. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the June 30th, 2017 Foreign Exchange Strategy Service Special Report titled "Who Hikes Next?", available at www.bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Near record high levels for stocks are not an impediment to gains in the stock-to-bond ratio in the next 12 months. Minutes from June's FOMC meeting confirmed that policymakers agree that monetary policy should continue to normalize in the coming quarters. None of the main indicators that have provided some leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. Solid ISM and industrial production readings herald bullish profit growth in the second half the year. Treasury yields are headed higher in 2017, supporting our stocks over bond view. Within the U.S. bond market, we prefer short over long duration and investment-grade and high-yield bonds over high-quality debt; MBS will be hurt more than Treasuries as the Fed pares its balance sheet. Feature U.S. stocks will continue to reach all-time highs if inflation remains low, the economic backdrop fosters EPS growth and the Fed only gradually raises rates. We expect these conditions to stay in place in the second half of 2017 and into 2018, allowing stocks to outrun bonds. We note below that neither valuations nor technicals are flashing a red warning sign. Chart 1 shows that most of the time, even when equities are at record highs, valuations are above average (but not extreme) and the Fed is slowly removing accommodation, stocks can still rise. Moreover, none of the indicators that provided leading information in the past now warn of an equity bear market. Chart 1Macro Conditions Favorable For More Gains In Equities Chart 2Labor Market Strong But Wages Still Stagnant The June jobs report suggests that the environment of solid economic growth and still muted wage pressures remains in place, a positive backdrop for equity markets. The report showed that the economy added 222,000 jobs in June, well above the consensus forecast of 178,000. Prior months were also revised higher by 47,000 pushing the 3-month moving average up to 180,000 jobs per month. This is right in line with the 187,000 jobs per month averaged in 2016. Despite robust payroll gains, the unemployment rate actually ticked higher in June, from 4.3% to 4.4%, as previously sidelined workers were drawn back into the labor force. Meanwhile, wage growth continues to underwhelm, rising only 0.2% in June with the year-over-year growth rate holding steady at 2.5%. The deceleration in the 3 month change in average hourly earnings from 2.7% in December 2016 to 1.9% in June challenges the Fed's view on inflation (Chart 2). The recent moderation in wage growth is not yet severe enough to prevent the Fed from delivering one more rate hike before year-end. However, if the labor force participation rate continues to increase, and especially if this increase occurs alongside a rising unemployment rate, then the Fed's forecast of gradually accelerating wages will come into question. Fed Minutes: No Change To Our Base Case Minutes from June's FOMC meeting show that the debate among policymakers over monetary policy centers on the timing and pace of normalization in the coming quarters. The minutes did not provide any new insight about the Fed's plans to shrink its balance sheet. This will be done using caps on the monthly amount of principal repayments from the Fed's security holdings that will not be rolled over. These caps will rise over time on a pre-set path. The FOMC is still debating the timing of the start of this process. The FOMC was reasonably pleased with the tone of recent economic data, which support the view that GDP has bounced back from a soft patch in the first quarter. The June manufacturing and services ISM surveys, released since the FOMC meeting, undoubtedly reinforced policymakers' confidence in the underlying growth trajectory (see below for more details). The FOMC participants discussed at length the recent pullback in core measures of consumer price inflation. Most policymakers are willing for the time being to believe that inflation is driven primarily by temporary one-off factors. Others are worried that it will be more enduring. The moderation in three-month rates of change of prices this year was widespread across sectors of the CPI (i.e. it is not merely the result of one-offs). Inflation according to the Fed's favored measure, the core PCE price index, has also moderated this year although the disinflation has not been as broadly based as in the CPI (Chart 3). Much of the FOMC's debate focused on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation. The doves want to see inflation rise closer to the 2% target before tightening even more. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excess risk-taking in the financial markets. The minutes reveal that the worries about the impact of easing financial conditions on financial stability have intensified since the start of the year. Inflation forecasting has been particularly tricky since the Great Recession for both the Fed and other economic prognosticators. Admittedly, it is difficult to explain the sudden and broadly-based inflation deceleration, even in sectors that have nothing to do with oil prices, shifts in the currency or wage growth. That said, the model shown in the top panel of Chart 4 suggests that core CPI inflation will edge higher in the coming months. This reflects the acceleration in ECI wage growth (feeding into higher core services inflation) and in core goods inflation (reflecting rising import prices), which more than offset the slight moderation in our projection for shelter inflation. Chart 3Inflation Readings Must##BR##Improve In Next Few Months Chart 4Core CPI Should Edge Higher##BR##In Coming Months Bottom Line: The minutes did not change our base case outlook; the FOMC will announce in September that it will begin to shrink the Fed's balance sheet shortly thereafter. The next rate hike will occur in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs importantly on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. We think it will, but uncertainty is high. Monitoring The Bear Market Barometer The FOMC's seeming determination to stick with the current tightening timetable raises question marks over the equity market, especially given elevated valuations. Chart 5Equity Bear Market Indicators BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, highlighted the best "equity bear market" indicators to watch in a 2014 Special Report1. He noted that no two bear markets are the same and that there are no indicators that have reliably heralded bear phases. Nonetheless, there are some common elements. The safest time to invest in the market is when monetary conditions are favorable, there are no signs of a looming economic downturn, extreme overvaluation is not present and technical indicators are not flashing red. Some indicators related to each of these fundamental factors are shown in Chart 5: Monetary Conditions: The yield curve is flat by historical standards, but it is far from inverted. Moreover, real short-term interest rates are usually substantially higher than today, and above 2%, when bear markets commence. Excess liquidity, which we define as M2 growth less nominal GDP growth, is also well above the zero line, a threshold that in the past has warned of a downturn in stock prices. Valuation: Our composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines over-valued. However, this is due to the components that compare equity prices to bond yields. The other three components of the equity indicator, which are unrelated to bond yields, suggest that stock valuation is stretched. Economic Outlook: Economic data, such as the leading economic indicator and ISM, have been unreliable bear market signals. We do not see anything that indicates that a recession is on the horizon. U.S. growth will remain above-trend in the second half of the year based on its relationship with financial conditions. Technical Conditions: Sentiment is elevated, which is bearish from a contrary perspective. However, breadth, the deviation from the 40- week moving average and our composite technical indicator, all are not flashing red. Earnings: Trends in earnings and margins did not provide any additional reliable signals for timing equity market downturns in the past. Still, it is a bad sign when EPS growth tops out. This is often preceded by a peak in industrial production growth. We expect EPS growth to continue to accelerate for at least a few more months, but we are closely watching industrial production. Bottom Line: The equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the indicators that have provided leading information in the past warn of an equity bear market. ISM Above 50 Supports 2H Profit Outlook The elevated level of ISM sets the stage for EPS growth to gather speed in the second half of 2017. Industrial production is a good proxy for sales of S&P 500 companies (Chart 6). A rollover in the 12-month change in IP would challenge our view. However, strong readings on the ISM, which tracks IP, suggest that IP should accelerate in the next six months (Chart 6, panel 1). Chart 6Solid Backdrop For Earnings And Sales At 57.8 in June, the ISM has rebounded from the recent low of 47.9 in 2015. Investors wonder if it will roll over again or simply fluctuate at a high level. The leading components of ISM, including the new orders index and the new orders-to-inventory ratio, indicate that the ISM will remain above 50 in the months ahead (Chart 7). Moreover, the new export orders component of the ISM has also surged. The implication is that foreign demand (rather than domestic consumer or business spending) is leading the U.S. manufacturing sector. In fact, the 3- and 12-month change in the industrial production indices in advanced economies outside the U.S. have outpaced domestic growth (Chart 8). Chart 7IP Poised To Accelerate Chart 8U.S. IP Lagging Other Developed Markets Bottom Line: Firm readings on ISM are an indication that our bullish profit story for 2017 remains intact. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. Inflection Point The increase in Treasury yields since late June indicates that growth expectations had become overly pessimistic. Our assessment is that U.S. growth will remain above trend for the rest of 2017. The implication for investors is that Treasury bond yields will move higher, the yield curve will bear-steepen, and that credit will outperform Treasuries in the second half of 2017. Moreover, we expect MBSs to underperform. According to our U.S. Bond Strategy service2, Treasury yields are poised to follow the economic surprise index higher in the coming months. Extreme net long positioning in the futures market supports the view. The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.52%. Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.45% (Chart 9). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Small positive excess returns, consistent with carry, remain the most likely scenario for investment- grade credit, where we recommend an overweight. We do not see the potential for much spread tightening from current levels. However, a large spread widening would be equally unlikely given the favorable backdrop of steady growth and muted inflation. We recommend an overweight in the high-yield market. We expect the decline in the 12-month trailing speculative default rate to continue for the rest of the year, aided by a moderation in energy sector defaults (Chart 10, bottom panel). This means that the current compensation offered by junk spreads in excess of expected default losses stands at 221 bps, in line with its historical average (Chart 10, panel 3). In last week's Weekly Report3 our U.S. Bond Strategy team showed that a default-adjusted spread of 221 bps is consistent with excess returns close to 150 bps during the next 12 months. Chart 9Treasury Fair Value Models Chart 10High-Yield Market Overview Our Energy Sector Strategy team stated in a Weekly Report4 last week that our base case of $50-$60/bbl WTI crude oil prices by the end of 2017 should keep high-yield energy spreads contained. We remain underweight MBSs. Nominal MBS spreads are already very tight compared with previous levels, and they appear even tighter relative to trends in net issuance. While refinancing activity will remain depressed, we see potential for option-adjusted spreads to follow net issuance higher, even as the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) remains low. The Fed's exit from the MBS market, which could occur as early as September, represents an additional upside risk for spreads. Bottom Line: Rates have bounced up after undershooting between March and the end of June. Loftier inflation readings are needed to sustain the bounce. Higher rates in the rest of 2017 support our stocks-over-bond stance. Within the U.S. bond market, we favor short duration over long, and credit over high-quality. MBSs will be hurt more than Treasurys as the Fed begins to shrink its balance sheet. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market, " dated January 24, 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Inflection Point", dated July 5, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "HY Debt Update: Offshore Drilling & Transportation Getting Left Behind", dated July 5, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com.