Developed Countries

Highlights Global Growth: Global bond yields have fallen in a coordinated fashion among the major economies, even with only a modest cooling of growth momentum and realized inflation outcomes. With little sign of an imminent downturn in growth on the horizon, government bonds now look a bit expensive. Global Inflation: Inflation expectations in the major economies have fallen too far relative to underlying non-energy inflation pressures. With oil prices likely to begin rising again as the demand-supply balance in global energy markets tightens up, both realized inflation and expectations should move higher in the latter half of the year, especially in the U.S. Bond Market Strategy: Markets are pricing in too few rate hikes in the U.S., leaving U.S. Treasuries exposed to higher yields in the next 3-6 months. Yields should also rise in core Europe, although not by as much as in the U.S. with the ECB not yet ready to turn less dovish. Stay underweight U.S., neutral core Europe and overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios. Feature Have bond investors now become too pessimistic on global growth and inflation prospects? This is a question worth asking after the sharp decline in longer-dated government bond yields witnessed since the peak in mid-March. The benchmark 10-year yield has fallen during that period by -43bps in the U.S., -21bps in Germany, -24bps in the U.K., -45bps in Canada and -54bps in Australia. Granted, there has been a bit of softer news on both growth and, more importantly, inflation readings in several economies in the past couple of months. Those pullbacks, however, have been relatively modest compared to the severe bull-flattening bond rally seen in most developed economies (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekAn Overreaction From Bond Investors Global leading economic indicators are still pointing to faster growth over the latter half of the year, led by easing financial conditions given booming equity and credit markets. With most major economies either at full employment (U.S., U.K., Japan, Australia) or approaching full employment (Euro Area, Canada), accelerating growth will ensure that the recent downtick in global inflation will not persist for long - especially if oil prices begin to move higher again as our commodity strategists expect. This week brings several major central bank meetings with an opportunity to change the bullish tone in the bond markets. The Federal Reserve, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) all meet, although only the Fed is expected to deliver another rate hike that is now heavily discounted in the markets. The BoE's hands are now effectively tied, even with high U.K. inflation, after last week's election outcome where the ruling Conservatives lost their majority government, thus ensuring even more uncertainty over the contours of the Brexit process. The BoJ is also stuck in a bind, with surprisingly strong Japanese economic growth but shockingly weak inflation. This is also the situation that the European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia are facing, to a lesser extent: solid domestic growth but without enough inflation to force any immediate tightening of monetary policy. These sorts of mixed messages and conflicting signals also exist in the bond markets in the developed world, as we discuss in this Weekly Report. Our conclusion is that yields have now priced in too much pessimism and the balance of risks points to yields rising again in the months ahead, led by U.S. Treasuries. A Big Move In Yields For Such A Small Change In Growth... Looking at the change in government bond yields within the major developed markets since the peak on March 13th (Table 1) shows a few important facts: Table 1A Bull Flattening Of Global Yield Curves Since March The largest yield declines were in the U.S., Canada & Australia; The smallest declines were in the U.K., the Euro Area and Japan - unsurprisingly, the countries where central banks are engaged in large bond purchase programs; Lower market-based inflation expectations have played a role in the bond rally, coinciding with softer energy prices and declines in realized inflation outcomes; Real yields (i.e. nominal yields minus inflation expectations) have fallen sharply in the U.S., Canada & Australia; Yield curves have bull-flattened everywhere; Breaking the curve moves into real yield and inflation expectations components shows that both contributed to the flatter yield curves. The U.S. Treasury action stands out compared to the others. There has also been a 103bp flattening in the 2-year/10-year TIPS real yield curve, while the TIPS breakeven curve has steepened by 64bps. This is the result of the -89bp drop in 2yr breakevens, which now sit at 1.38% - well below the current U.S. headline CPI inflation rate of 2.2%. Even allowing for any potential liquidity issues that can distort the precise interpretation of shorter-dated TIPS breakevens, the market appears to be expecting a bigger drop in inflation in the next couple of years than both the Fed and the Bloomberg consensus of economic forecasters (Table 2).1 This U.S. move stands out relative to the other countries, where there has been very little change in 2-year inflation expectations (using CPI swaps instead of breakeven rates from inflation-linked bonds). With the headline U.S. unemployment rate now at a cyclical low of 4.3%, and with the broader U-6 measure, now down to a decade low of 8.4%, we anticipate a recovery in realized inflation, and TIPS breakevens, in the next few months. The source for the broader downturn in global inflation expectations is a bit of a mystery. While some cyclical global growth indicators like manufacturing PMIs have fallen a bit in some countries, most notably the U.S. and China, they are still at strong levels above 50 that point to faster economic growth (Chart 2). Leading economic indicators (LEIs) are also still pointing to some acceleration in the latter half of 2017 although, admittedly, the list of countries with rising LEIs has been diminishing in recent months. We see that as a potential sign of slower growth next year, but not for the rest of 2017. Table 2Consensus Growth & Inflation Forecasts Chart 2Global Economic Upturn Still Intact Bottom Line: Global bond yields have fallen in a coordinated fashion among the major economies, even with only a modest cooling of growth momentum and realized inflation outcomes. With little sign of an imminent downturn in growth on the horizon, government bonds now look a bit expensive. ...And Inflation Of course, some of the decline in inflation expectations can be attributed to softer readings on realized inflation over the past few months. Yet the markets seem to have overreacted a bit to that move, as well. The run of stronger-than-expected inflation outcomes has taken a breather in both the developed and emerging world, as evidenced by the rolling over of the Citigroup inflation surprise indices (Chart 3). Yet those indices remain at high levels and are not pointing to a meaningful, extended pullback in realized inflation. Chart 3Global Inflation Data Has Cooled A Bit The pullback in global energy prices since March has played a role in softer headline inflation in most countries. That decline has been part of a broader move lower in commodity prices that is likely related to less reflationary monetary and fiscal policies out of the world's biggest commodity consumer, China. However, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy have noted that export and import volumes in the emerging economies accelerated sharply in the first quarter of 2017. Given that there is a strong correlation between trade volumes and oil demand in the emerging markets, this bodes well for a rebound in global oil demand. Combined with the "OPEC 2.0" production cuts, the demand-supply balance in world oil markets is likely to turn positive in the months ahead, which will allow oil prices to return to a range close to $60/bbl by year-end.2 A move in oil prices back to that level would help arrest the downturn in overall commodity price indices, and help stabilize goods CPI inflation in the developed economies in the latter half of 2017 (Chart 4). This should help boost global inflation expectations, and eventually bond yields, as the downturn in energy prices has shown very little pass-through into non-energy inflation in the developed world (Chart 5). Chart 4Disinflationary Impulse##BR##From Energy Will Soon Fade... Chart 5...Although The Impact On##BR##Inflation Has Been Modest Yet that stability of non-energy inflation visible in the charts masks many of the cross-currents seen across countries and within countries. Services CPI inflation remains strong in the U.S. at 3%, and has accelerated to 2% in both the U.K. and the Euro Area (Chart 6). Yet at the same time, both services and core inflation are falling rapidly towards 0% in Japan, despite a solid economic upturn and tight labor market. The situation is even more confusing in Canada, where wage inflation has fallen to below 1% but services inflation has picked up to 3%. Australia is in a similar boat, with services inflation above 3% but wages growing at only 2%. The divergence between the inflation outcomes across the countries can also be seen in our headline CPI diffusion indices, which measure the number of CPI sectors that are witnessing accelerating rates of inflation. The diffusion indices in the U.S., Japan and Canada are all at low levels, with the majority of CPI components seeing slowing rates of inflation, yet overall inflation seems to be holding up well despite the breadth of the "downturn", at least based on past correlations (Chart 7). The opposite is true in the Euro Area and Australia, where a majority of inflation components are growing faster, yet overall inflation is only moving slowly higher. Only in the U.K. is there a clear robust rise in the breadth of inflation (90% of CPI components accelerating) and overall inflation (headline CPI expanding at around 3%). Chart 6Underlying Inflation Has Not##BR##Slowed Much (Except In Japan) Chart 7Mixed Signals From The##BR##Global CPI Diffusion Indices Given all these diverging signals within the national inflation data, we are surprised that there has been such a uniform decline in inflation expectations across the major bond markets. That leads us to look to the oil price decline as the main cause of the lower expectations, rather than a more pernicious drop caused by expectations of slowing economic growth and cooling domestic inflation pressures. Given the BCA view that oil prices have likely reached bottom and will begin to move higher, the decline in global inflation expectations is likely to also end soon. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations in the major economies have fallen too far relative to underlying non-energy inflation pressures. With oil prices likely to begin rising again as the demand-supply balance in global energy markets tightens up, both realized inflation and expectations should move higher in the latter half of the year, especially in the U.S. Bond Market Strategy For The Second Half Of 2017 The outlook for government bond yields in the remaining months of the year will be driven by decent global growth and rising inflation expectations. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to point to the need for tighter monetary policy in every major developed market excluding Japan (Chart 8), leaving bond yield exposed to any unexpected moves from central bankers. This is especially problematic in the U.S., where fed funds futures now discount only a 25-30% probability of a Fed rate hike in September and December after the expected hike at this week's FOMC meeting (Chart 9). With the U.S. OIS curve pricing in only 48bps of hikes over the next 12 months, the Treasury market is exposed to a Fed moving more aggressively in meetings later in 2017. Chart 8Our Central Bank Monitors Still##BR##Calling For Tighter Policy (Ex Japan) Chart 9Markets Will Be Surprised##BR##By The Fed Later This Year In Europe, the ECB talked up a more positive economic growth story at last week's policy meeting, eliminating the language suggesting that rate cuts would be necessary because the growth recovery was still fragile. No signal was given about slowing the pace of ECB asset purchases, which was not a surprise given the still-low readings on core inflation in the Euro Area. The ECB did slightly downgrade its inflation projections for the next two years, with core inflation now expected to rise to 1.8% by 2019. Our Months-to-Hike measure for the Euro Area now out to 29 months, indicating that the first ECB rate hike is now expected in November of 2019 (Chart 10). Our view remains that the ECB will look to taper asset purchases before contemplating any rate hikes, and will likely signal a move to slow the pace of bond buying at the September policy meeting. While we agree that a rate hike is unlikely until 2019, the current market pricing does leave European bond markets exposed to any upside surprises in inflation over the next year. For now, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to core European government bonds, with a curve steepening bias, while focusing Peripheral exposure on Spain relative to Italy. We envision moving to underweight Europe over the summer if the growth and inflation data continue to point to an eventual ECB taper, especially given the strong comparisons between Europe now and the pre-Taper Tantrum period in the U.S. in 2012-13 (Chart 11). Chart 10No ECB Hikes##BR##Expected Until 2019 Chart 11Bunds Still Following The U.S.##BR##Post-QE Experience In Japan, we expect the BoJ to continue to target a 0% 10yr JGB yield for some time, in order to ensure that there is enough currency weakness to keep headline inflation from decelerating (Chart 12). This will especially be true if our call for higher U.S. interest rates comes to fruition and USD/JPY begins moving higher again. We continue to recommend an overweight position on Japan with government bond portfolios, given the low yield beta of JGBs to the other bond markets (Chart 13). Chart 12The BoJ Will Do "Whatever It Takes"##BR##To Keep The Yen Soft Chart 13Stay Overweight##BR##Low-Beta JGBs Finally, we continue to recommend long CPI swaps positions in both the Euro Zone and Japan, and an overweight in U.S. TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, as a way to play for the rebound in global inflation expectations that we are expecting over the balance of 2017. However, given the disturbing downturn in core inflation readings in Japan, we are implementing a tight stop-loss level at 0.4% on our long 10yr Japan CPI swaps position (Chart 14). Chart 14Stay Long CPI Swaps##BR##In Europe & Japan (With A Stop) Bottom Line: Markets are pricing in too few rate hikes in the U.S., leaving U.S. Treasuries exposed to higher yields in the next 3-6 months. Yields should also rise in core Europe, although not by as much as in the U.S. with the ECB not yet ready to turn less dovish. Stay underweight U.S., neutral core Europe and overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The FOMC projections for growth in the headline Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator from the latest set of forecasts released in March called for inflation of 1.9% in 2017 and 2.0% in 2018. The gap between the headline measures of CPI inflation and PCE deflator inflation has averaged about 50bps in recent years, so that implies that the Fed is expecting CPI inflation to be much higher than the 1.38% 2-year TIPS breakeven. 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil", dated June 8 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The main driving force behind EM risk assets this year has been downshifting U.S. interest rates and a weak U.S. dollar. These factors have more than offset the relapse in commodity prices and the deteriorating growth outlook for China/EM. Going forward, odds favor a rise in U.S. interest rates and a stronger dollar. If this scenario materializes, the EM rally will reverse. Meanwhile, China's liquidity conditions have tightened, warranting a meaningful slowdown in money/credit and economic growth. Altogether, the outlook for EM risk assets is extremely poor, and we reiterate our defensive strategy. In Argentina, we continue favoring local currency bonds and sovereign credit, especially relative to their EM counterparts. Feature What Has Not Worked In This Rally Financial market actions of late have been rife with contradictions, and momentum trades have been prevalent. In the past few months we have been highlighting that EM risk assets - stocks, currencies and bonds - have decoupled from most of their historically reliable indicators such as commodities prices, China's money and credit impulses and China/EM manufacturing PMI.1 This week we highlight several additional indicators and variables that EM risk assets have diverged from. Chinese H shares - the index that does not contain internet/social media stocks - have decoupled from the Chinese yield curve (Chart I-1). The mainstream press have been focused on inversion in the 10/5-year Chinese yield curve, but we do not find it to be a particularly credible or useful indicator for the economy. Our preference is the 5-year to 3-month yield curve to gauge the cyclical growth outlook. Chart I-1China's Yield Curve Heralds Lower Share Prices Not only has the yield curve been flattening, but it has also recently inverted, suggesting an impending downturn in China's business cycle (Chart I-2). Chart I-2China's Yield Curve Inversion Points To A Growth Slump In China, commercial banks' excess reserves at the People's Bank of China (PBoC) have begun shrinking since early this year, reflecting the PBoC's liquidity tightening (Chart I-3, top panel). Banks' excess reserves are the ultimate liquidity constraint on banks' ability to originate new credit/money and expand their balance sheets. Meanwhile, Chinese commercial banks are stretched and overextended, as illustrated by the record-high ratios of both M2 and commercial banks' assets-to-excess reserves (Chart I-3, bottom panel). These are true measures of the money multiplier, and they have surged to very high levels. Besides, financial/bank regulators are clamping down on speculative activities among banks and other financial intermediaries, and are also forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets. Faced with dwindling liquidity (excess reserves), rising interest rates and a regulatory clampdown, banks will slow down credit / money origination. Slower credit growth will cause a considerable slump in capital spending, and overall economic growth will downshift. On a similar note, interest rates lead money/credit growth in China, as evidenced in Chart I-4. Chart I-3China: Dwindling Excess Reserves ##br##Will Cause A Credit Slowdown Chart I-4China: Interest Rates ##br##And Money Growth The considerable - about 200 basis points - rise in Chinese money market and corporate bond yields since November heralds a deceleration in money/credit growth. Historically, interest rates affect money/credit growth and ultimately economic activity with a time lag. There is no reason why this relationship will not hold in China this time around. Given that Chinese companies are overleveraged, credit growth is likely to be more sensitive to rising than falling interest rates. Hence, the lingering credit excesses in China make rising interest rates more dangerous. Industrial commodities prices have reacted to liquidity tightening in China sensibly by falling since early this year (Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B). Chart I-5AWidespread Decline In Commodities Prices (II) Chart I-5BWidespread Decline In Commodities Prices (I) The weakness in commodities prices since early this year is especially noteworthy because it has occurred at a time of U.S. dollar weakness and dissipating Federal Reserve tightening concerns. When and as the U.S. dollar gains ground again, the selloff in commodities will escalate. Outside commodities, there are early signposts that another Chinese slowdown is beginning to unfold - slowing exports in May from Korea and Taiwan to China, being one glaring example (Chart I-6). This chart corroborates our argument that the surge in Chinese imports in late 2016 and the first quarter 2017 was a one-off growth boost, and appeared very strong because of the low base from a year ago. Consistently, Taiwan's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio has rolled over, which correlates well with the tech-heavy Taiwanese stock index (Chart I-6, bottom panel). With respect to the broader EM universe, EM equities and currencies have decoupled from U.S. inflation expectations (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Shipments To China Have Rolled Over Chart I-7EM And U.S. Inflation Expectations: ##br##Unsustainable Decoupling? Historically, falling U.S. inflation expectations have reflected dropping oil prices and caused real rates (TIPS yields) to rise. In turn, lower oil prices and/or rising TIPS yields weighed on EM risk assets. The decline in U.S. Treasurys yields since last December has been largely due to inflation expectations rather than real rates. Such a mixture has historically been ominous for EM risk assets. Notwithstanding, EM risk assets have rallied a lot, despite such a hostile backdrop year-to-date. Finally, the Brazilian and South African exchange rates and their bonds have been among the more stellar performers in the past 12 months. Nevertheless, first quarter GDP releases in Brazil and South Africa have confirmed that there has been little domestic demand recovery in either country. Remarkably, in both countries, agriculture and mining volumes boomed in the first quarter, boosting GDP growth, yet final domestic demand remained shockingly depressed, as illustrated in Chart I-8. This discards the popular EM rally narrative that improving global growth will lift EM economies. Neither a poor domestic growth backdrop and political volatility nor falling commodities prices have prompted a meaningful plunge in either the Brazilian or South African exchange rate. Chart I-9 portends that the BRL and ZAR have historically been correlated with commodities prices but have recently shown tentative signs of decoupling. Chart I-8Not Much Recovery In Brazil ##br##And South Africa's Domestic Demand Chart I-9BRL And ZAR And Commodities Bottom Line: EM financial markets have veered away from many traditional indicators. These constitute important contradictions and raise the question of whether this time is different. We do not think so. What Has Driven This EM Rally: U.S. Rates And The U.S. Dollar The variables that have explained the EM rally in the past six months have been falling U.S. interest rate expectations and a weaker U.S. dollar, as well as the global technology mania. We elaborated on the tech rally in recent weeks,2 and this week re-visit EM's link with U.S. interest rates and the greenback. The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year -to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart I-10). In short, it has been the carry trade that has transpired since the Fed's meeting on December 15, 2016 - regardless of EM growth dynamics and fundamentals. Going forward, barring a major growth relapse in China/EM growth and an associated U.S. dollar rally, the odds favor a rise in U.S. interest rates in general and U.S. TIPS yields in particular: The U.S. composite capacity utilization gauge (Chart I-11, top panel) - constructed by our Foreign Exchange Strategy team based on the unemployment gap and industrial capacity utilization - is moving above the zero line, denoting that there is little slack in the U.S. economy. Chart I-10U.S. TIPS Yields, Dollar And EM Chart I-11The U.S. Economy: Is It The Time To Bet On Higher Bond Yields? Any time the indicator has moved above the zero line in the past 55 years - the shaded periods on Chart I-11 - inflationary pressures, wages and bond yields have typically risen, and vice versa. The message from this indicator is unambiguous: U.S. inflationary pressures will become evident soon, and interest rates will rise. In this context, U.S. interest rate expectations are too low. Re-pricing of U.S. interest rates will shake off lingering complacency across many financial markets worldwide. Notably, the U.S. mortgage purchase index is surging, job openings are very elevated (Chart I-12), financial and property markets are buoyant and the dollar has been weak. If the Fed does not normalize interest rates now, when will it? Finally, both nominal and inflated-adjusted U.S. bond yields are at their technical support, and will likely bounce from these levels (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Are U.S. Rate Expectations Too Low? Chart I-13U.S. Bond Yields Are At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14U.S. Growth Underperformance Is Late Rising U.S. interest rates will trigger another up leg in the U.S. dollar. Notably, the relative economic surprise index between the U.S. and the G10 is close to its post-crisis lows (Chart I-14). The relative U.S. growth underperformance versus DM is late and will turn around very soon. While it does not always define the fluctuations in the U.S. dollar, we would still expect it to lend some support to the greenback. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service believes the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is still in a bull market, especially versus EM, DM commodities currencies and Asian currencies. We have less conviction on the magnitude of the downside in the euro, but the latter at minimum will not rally above 1.14 -1.15 for now. Finally, various EM currencies are facing an important technical resistance (Chart I-15A and Chart I-15B). We expect these technical levels to mark their top. Chart I-15AEM Currencies Are Facing Technical Resistance (II) Chart I-15BEM Currencies Are Facing Technical Resistance (I) At the same time, the precious metals index seems to be rolling over at its 200-day resistance level (Chart I-16). A top in the precious metals index would be consistent with a bottom in U.S. TIPS yields and the U.S. dollar. Chart I-16Precious Metals Are Facing ##br##A Major Resistance Bottom Line: U.S. interest rate expectations are too low and are set to rise. Rising interest rates will remove a major support underpinning the EM rally. A Resolution There are three potential scenarios as far as the ongoing EM rally is concerned: The goldilocks scenario of low interest rates in the U.S., a weaker dollar and steady-to-improving growth in EM/China. The markets have already priced in a lot of good news, but the rally could feasibly continue for some time if this scenario transpires. Re-pricing of the Fed. U.S. interest rates will rise and the dollar will get bid up. The rationale is the modest U.S. inflationary pressures will become evident amid solid U.S. growth. This will weigh on EM risk assets, even if EM/China growth does not falter. The basis for this is the EM rally year-to-date has been driven by diminishing U.S. interest rates expectations. Deflation trade redux. China/EM growth will deteriorate meaningfully (for reasons discussed above), causing a considerable downshift in commodities prices and EM risk assets. This could well occur even if U.S. rates stay low. In fact, this is the main plausible reason to bet against a rise in U.S. interest rate expectations from current levels. Investing is about assigning probabilities. We assign much lower probability to the first scenario (no more than 20%), while we see the odds of either the second or third scenarios playing out in the short term at closer to 40%. In the medium term (nine-to 12 months), scenario 3 will be the most prevalent one. If conditions in scenario 2 (rising U.S. bond yields) coincide with a deflationary shock emanating from China, EM financial markets will face a perfect storm. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend a defensive investment strategy for absolute-return investors, and recommend an underweight allocation towards EM within global portfolios across stocks, credit and currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM: Is This Time Different?", dated June 7, 2017, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?", dated May 17, 2017, and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM: Is This Time Different?", dated June 7, links available on page 19. Argentina: Favor Local Bonds And Sovereign Spreads EM fixed-income portfolio should continue to overweight Argentine local currency bonds and sovereign credit based on the following reasons: Policymakers continue pursuing credible orthodox policies. The central bank has been accumulating foreign exchange as a part of its explicit program to increase international reserves from 10% to 15% of GDP and keep the peso competitive. At the same time, the monetary authorities have partially siphoned off liquidity via reverse repos (Chart II-1). On a net-net basis, monetary stance is rather tight as evidenced by money and credit contraction in real (inflation-adjusted) terms (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Argentina: Rising Reserves ##br##And Reverse Sterilization Chart II-2Argentina: Inflation-Adjusted Money ##br##And Credit Are Contracting Rapid disinflation is proving difficult to achieve due to inflation inertia and high inflation expectations. However, the authorities are holding their position steady in wage negotiations. Wages in both the public and private sectors are contracting in real terms (Chart II-3). Provided wages are a major driver of inflation, employee compensation growing at a slower pace than inflation signals lower inflation ahead. The economy is not yet recovering as evidenced by Chart II-4 and lingering economic stagnation will foster disinflation. Chart II-3Argentina: Lower Wage Growth ##br##Is Critical To Anchor Inflation Chart II-4Argentina: The Economy ##br##Is Still In Doldrums A change in our fundamental view on inflation would require an irresponsible central bank tolerating run away money and credit growth. We find this scenario unlikely and hold the view that the inflation outlook will improve (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Argentina: Inflation Is On The Right Track In regard to the currency, the Argentine central bank will allow the peso to depreciate as maintaining a competitive exchange rate is a major policy priority for them. This is especially true if commodities prices fall and the regional currencies (BRL and CLP) depreciate versus the greenback. The current account and fiscal deficits are large but Argentina is seeing significant FDI and foreign portfolio capital inflows. Hence, funding will not be a problem for some time. The eventual economic recovery and the cheap currency, as well as slow but progressing reforms, will make Argentina a more attractive destination for foreign investors and ensure foreign capital inflows. Overall, there are many challenges, but the outlook for Argentina is much better compared with EM economies in general, and Brazil in particular. Hence, we recommend staying long Argentinian assets on a relative basis versus EM counterparts, particularly Brazil. Specifically, we maintain the following positions: Long ARS versus BRL. We do not expect the currency to depreciate more than what the NDF market is pricing in the next 12 months, and believe it will outperform the BRL on a total return basis (including carry). Stay long Argentine 7-year local currency government bonds. Stay long Argentine / short Brazilian and Venezuelan sovereign credit. Overweight Argentine stocks within the emerging and frontier market universes. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Consumer staples equities in general and beverage stocks in particular have been stellar outperformers this year. Nevertheless, this strength may prove fleeting as our leading profit indicators have all taken a decisive turn for the worse. The biggest risk centers on weakness in beverage shipments, which is a cause for concern given the correlation with relative performance. Our beverage industry activity proxy confirms this bearish message: relative profitability is under attack. There is some hope that a weaker U.S. dollar, especially against emerging market (EM) currencies, may partially neutralize soft domestic consumption. But we are reluctant to forecast an export resurgence, given that EM consumption growth has continued to ease. Adding it up, leading indicators of beverage demand remain muted at a time when industry price deflation has intensified. This is a toxic brew for profitability, and we recommend using recent outperformance to sell down positions to underweight. Downgrade the S&P soft drinks index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFD - PEP, KO, DPS, MNST.

In early-April we upgraded the S&P utilities sector to a tactical (1-3 month) overweight courtesy of five key drivers that have now largely played out (please see our Weekly Report of April 3, 2017 for more details). As a result, we are booking modest profits and downgrading to a benchmark allocation. The composite ISM export index and our U.S. capex indicator, both indicators that have historically varied inversely with the utilities sector, have catapulted higher recently (second & third panels). Meanwhile, electricity production growth has crested and natural gas price inflation has rolled over, suggesting that pricing power gains have peaked. In sum, utilities leading profit indicators have crested and all five of the driving forces behind our tactical overweight recommendation have largely transpired. Downgrade to neutral.

Highlights Duration & TIPS: The recent downtrend in nominal Treasury yields has been driven entirely by inflation that has come in weaker than expected. We are inclined to view inflation's weakness as transitory and suggest investors maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, as well as an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Corporate Debt & The Economy: High corporate debt levels are not indicative of over-investment on the part of the corporate sector. As such, they do not suggest an elevated risk of recession. Corporate Debt & Credit Spreads: While a supportive Fed will keep corporate spreads low for the time being, rising leverage is starting to send a worrying message. Feature It's All About Inflation Chart 1End Of The Trump Trade? Treasury securities have reversed a lot of their post-election sell off during the past few weeks, and the 10-year yield is now only 38 basis points above where it was last November (Chart 1). A quick glance at the 10-year's real and inflation components reveals that weaker inflation is the culprit. The real 10-year Treasury yield remains 31 bps above its pre-election level, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now only 7 bps higher (Chart 1, bottom panel). This explains a lot about the broader financial environment. Stable growth and low inflation create a fertile breeding ground for risk assets, and corporate bond spreads are indeed considerably tighter than prior to the election. The average spread on the investment grade corporate bond index is currently 113 bps, down from 135 bps in November. The average junk spread is currently 365 bps, down from 489 bps. What explains the large drop in inflation breakevens? One reason is that they had simply overshot the fair value implied by other financial instruments (Chart 2). Our financial model- based on the oil price, the exchange rate and the stock-to-bond total return ratio - shows that the 10-year breakeven rate was around 20 bps too high earlier this year. It is now almost exactly in line with our model's fair value. The most likely explanation for the overshoot is that markets started to discount a much more stimulative fiscal policy in the immediate aftermath of the election. The potential for large tax cuts at a time of already tight labor markets caused investors' inflation expectations to ramp up. While tax cuts are still likely, it now appears as though they will occur much later and be smaller in scale than was originally thought. Falling oil prices have also exacerbated the drop in breakevens by causing the fair value reading from our model to roll over (Chart 2, bottom panel). Our commodity strategists do not think oil prices will stay this low for much longer.1 OPEC 2.0 production cuts and sustained growth in emerging market trade volumes will cause oil inventories to fall this year, leading to a rebound in prices. The second explanation for this year's drop in the inflation component of yields is that the core inflation data have disappointed during the past couple of months. After reaching 1.8% in February of this year, 12-month trailing core PCE inflation has deviated sharply from the uptrend that had been in place since mid-2015. As of April, it had fallen back to 1.5%, well below the level implied by our Phillips Curve inflation model (Chart 3). Chart 2TIPS Financial Model Chart 3A Phillips Curve Inflation Model With the labor market continuing to tighten and the dollar having depreciated in recent months, we are inclined to view the recent drop in core inflation as transitory. In fact, even after making some adjustments to the estimation interval (see Box), our Phillips Curve inflation model still projects that core PCE inflation will reach 2% by the end of this year in a base case scenario where the unemployment rate, the exchange rate and survey inflation expectations are all unchanged. Box: Incorporating Different Regimes Into Our Inflation Model As has been explored in depth in prior reports,2 we have been modeling core PCE inflation using a Phillips Curve model that is inspired by one that Janet Yellen mentioned in a 2015 speech.3 Essentially, we model core inflation using lagged inflation, the gap between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the natural unemployment rate, relative non-oil import prices and a survey measure of inflation expectations. Previously we estimated the coefficients for this model using the longest time interval we could obtain - starting in October 1979. However, a recent Fed paper by Jeremy Nalewaik4 motivated us to refine this approach. Nalewaik shows that core PCE inflation has been driven by different factors in different regimes, and that those regimes can be defined by whether inflation expectations were well-anchored or highly volatile. Specifically, in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, inflation expectations were highly volatile and explained much more of the variation in actual core inflation than they did in the 1960s or from the mid-1990s until the present day. We confirmed this result by splitting our sample into two periods - 1979 to 1995, and 1995 to present. Our results show that inflation expectations were a much more significant driver of core inflation in the 1979-1995 regime than they are in the current regime (Table 1). As such, we have decided that the coefficients calculated using the 1995-present interval are probably more representative of the current environment. Applying these coefficients to the four scenarios we examined in our May 2 report, our model now projects that core PCE inflation will reach 2.03% by year end in our "base case" scenario, 1.93% in our "strong dollar" scenario, 1.97% in our "bad NAIRU" scenario and 1.87% in our "deflation case" scenario. Table 1BCA Phillips Curve Model* Of Core** PCE Inflation Under Different Regression Intervals Where Are Yields Headed From Here? We see two potential scenarios that could play out between now and the end of the year. The first is that core inflation rebounds during the next few months and ends the year closer to our model's fair value estimate. The inflation component of yields would move higher in this scenario and real yields would probably also increase. The 10-year real yield closely tracks our 12-month fed funds discounter, which measures the number of rate hikes the market expects during the next year (Chart 4). The discounter currently sits at 49 bps, meaning that the market expects fewer than 2 rate hikes during the next 12 months. This would certainly be revised higher if inflation were to rebound. Chart 4Fed Wants Wider Breakevens The second possible scenario is that while U.S. growth stays close to its current 2% pace, inflation simply does not bounce back. In other words, core PCE ends the year closer to 1.5% than to 2% and a large residual opens up between inflation and our Phillips Curve model. While TIPS breakevens would be unlikely to rise in this scenario, the downside is also probably limited unless inflation were to fall below its current 1.5%. If this second scenario plays out the Fed would also probably react by adopting a more dovish policy stance. This would cause the market's rate hike expectations, and 10-year real yields, to fall. But even here the downside would appear to be limited. With the market currently priced for a mere 39 bps of hikes between now and the end of 2017 and only another 24 bps for all of 2018, there simply isn't much scope for a large dovish re-rating of the Fed. Additionally, if the Fed were to adopt a sufficiently dovish reaction function in the face of persistently low inflation, it is possible that lower rate hike expectations could spur a recovery in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. If the market believes that the Fed will stay dovish enough for inflation to recover to target, then the positive correlation between real yields and inflation breakevens could reverse. There are recent precedents for this (Chart 4, bottom panel). In 2011 and 2012, the Fed's Operation Twist caused rate hike expectations and real yields to fall, but also led to wider TIPS breakevens. The reverse scenario played out in 2015 when the market decided that the Fed was adopting an overly hawkish policy stance. This caused TIPS breakevens to fall as real yields rose. The conclusion here is that even if inflation stays stubbornly low for the remainder of the year, and the Fed responds by guiding the market toward a shallower rate hike path, then it is possible that some of the downside in real yields will be mitigated by rising TIPS breakevens. In our view, the risk/reward trade-off between the two scenarios outlined above suggests that investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Bottom Line: The recent downtrend in nominal Treasury yields has been driven entirely by inflation that has come in weaker than expected. We are inclined to view inflation's weakness as transitory and suggest investors maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, as well as an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Even in a scenario where inflation stays low despite continued above-trend economic growth, we view the downside in yields from current levels as limited. It's Late In The Game For Corporate Credit With last week's release of the U.S. Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) we are able to update some of our preferred credit cycle indicators. One concerning development is that net corporate leverage - defined as total debt less cash as a percent of EBITD - ticked higher for the second consecutive quarter in Q1 (Chart 5). Chart 5Corporate Balance Sheets Continue To Add Leverage As we have observed in previous reports,5 there is a strong correlation between net leverage and spreads. In fact, we are only able to identify one other period in which spreads were able to tighten as leverage rose. That period was in the late 1980s, immediately following the crash and subsequent rebound in oil prices. As is shown in Chart 5, net leverage correlates strongly with both corporate spreads and the default rate. However, in the late 1980s the collapse of the energy sector caused spreads to widen too far. Spreads then benefited from a "payback period" as energy prices recovered and defaults ebbed during the following two years. But in the background, net leverage only managed to level-off for a brief period before continuing to trend higher. The uptrend in leverage culminated in the 1990 default cycle and recession. We see a similar dynamic playing out at the moment. Spreads (and the default rate) are currently benefiting from the payback period following the 2014 collapse and subsequent recovery in commodity prices. But so far leverage has not managed to cease its upward march. What Is Leverage Telling Us Right Now? As was mentioned above, net leverage has now increased for two consecutive quarters. To see what this has meant historically, we looked at excess investment grade corporate bond returns over 6-month periods following different changes in net leverage. For example, we found that after leverage has increased for two consecutive quarters, the average (annualized) 6-month excess return to investment grade corporate bonds has been -190 bps, and also that corporate bonds outperformed Treasuries in 45% of those 6-month periods (Table 2). Table 26-Month Investment Grade Corporate Excess Returns* ##br##Following A Rise In Net Corporate Leverage** (1973 To Present) Conversely, in 6-month periods after leverage has declined for two consecutive quarters, average (annualized) excess returns came in at +120 bps, and corporate bonds outperformed Treasuries in 61% of those episodes (Table 3). Table 36-Month Investment Grade Corporate Excess Returns* ##br##Following A Decline In Net Corporate Leverage** (1973 To Present) Not surprisingly, the late 1980s episode was one that defied the above statistics. In fact, investment grade corporate bonds outperformed Treasuries by an annualized 5% in the 6-month span between September 1986 and March 1987, even though leverage had previously increased for 4 consecutive quarters. For this reason we remain comfortable with our overweight in corporate bonds for now, especially since the Fed is likely to remain sufficiently accommodative to support higher inflation and hence continued economic growth. However, it is obvious that trends in leverage will be critical to monitor going forward. Where Is Leverage Heading? A rebound in corporate profits would help stem the uptrend in leverage, and the outlook for that is good. Not only did our measure of EBITD diverge negatively from S&P 500 operating profits in the first quarter, but other leading profit indicators such as the growth in business sales less inventories suggest that EBITD should catch up to S&P 500 profits, and not the reverse (Chart 6). What remains unclear is whether the looming rebound in profit growth will be enough to cause leverage to fall. While debt growth has been rolling over (Chart 5, bottom panel), we think it will remain at a reasonably high level going forward. Meanwhile, the historical evidence suggests that net leverage does not usually reverse its uptrend unless first prompted by a recession. Turning to debt, the ratio of corporate debt to GDP is definitely eyebrow raising (Chart 7), as it is now very close to levels observed at the peak of the past two cycles. However, one important caveat is in order. While corporate debt levels have grown quickly, corporate investment has not. Chart 6Profit Growth Will Improve Chart 7Investment Is Coming Back The corporate financing gap - capital expenditures less internally generated revenue - is a good proxy for the amount of debt issued to fund investment. In the second panel of Chart 7 we see that it has only just moved into positive territory and is well below the levels observed at the end of the last two recoveries. The obvious conclusion is that most corporate debt issuance has not been used to finance investment, but rather has been used to buy back equities. This is bad news from the perspective of corporate bondholders who would certainly prefer more people below them in the capital structure, but it also means that high corporate debt levels are not indicative of over-investment on the part of the corporate sector. As such, high corporate debt levels do not suggest that the risk of recession is elevated. They merely suggest that corporations' capital structures have shifted in favor of shareholders over bondholders. Going forward, we see potential for a moderation in the amount of corporate debt issuance used to fund buybacks. This has already started to occur as evidenced by our buyback proxy (Chart 7, panel 3) - simply the difference between net issuance and the financing gap shown in panel 2. Not surprisingly, this buyback proxy is highly correlated with the difference between the equity risk premium and corporate bond spreads. However, any moderation in share buybacks will be at least partially offset by an increase in debt issuance to fund investment. Corporate investment has seen a revival during the past few quarters, and leading indicators such as ISM New Orders surveys suggest it will continue trending up (Chart 7, bottom panel). Bottom Line: While a supportive Fed will keep corporate spreads low for the time being, rising leverage is starting to send a worrying message. Unless strong profit growth causes leverage to reverse course, it will likely be appropriate to scale back on credit risk either later this year or early next year, once the monetary back-drop becomes less supportive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil", dated June 8, 207, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 3, 2017, and "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017, both available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016078pap.pdf 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. 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 the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The ECB's meeting was in line with expectations, the governing council increased its growth forecast, decreased its inflation forecast, removed it easing bias, but maintained that easy policy was key to support its objectives. Going forward, growth will have to remain just as strong for European inflation dynamics to emerge. Financial conditions between the U.S. and the euro area are moving in favor of U.S. growth, and thus, the USD. EUR/USD momentum is stretched, but it can rise further. EUR/USD at 1.15 in the coming weeks is a risk to our view. However, EUR/USD forecasts have already been ratcheted upward, and their capacity to lift the euro is losing steam. Feature The European Central Bank hit the mark yesterday with a performance that was bang on in terms of expectations, as illustrated by the euro's muted response. The governing council increased its growth forecast by 0.1% each year and curtailed its inflation forecast by an average of 0.2% until 2019, inclusively (Table I-1). Moreover, while the ECB statement removed its future easing bias, in the press conference ECB President Mario Draghi made it crystal clear that this was because deflationary risks were evaporating, but the economy still needed extremely easy conditions in order to stay on the trajectory envisioned by the ECB. As a result, despite this adjustment in forward guidance, the ECB elected to keep its asset purchases in place, even leaving the door open for time extensions and size increases if conditions warrant. After all, in the eyes of the ECB - and it is an assessment we share - the great performance of the European economy has been and remains dependent on the continuation of a very easy policy stance. In this optic, we study the outlook for growth dynamics in Europe, especially in relation to the U.S., as this is what will determine the future path of relative policy. If European policy can move in a more hawkish fashion relative to the Federal Reserve as well as current expectations, then the euro bear market will be over. Growth And Financial Conditions For the euro to rally further, the ECB has to be able to beat market expectations and the Fed has to continue to underwhelm. So far this has not happened, but markets are forward looking and are behaving as if both central banks will follow these paths. To expect a tightening of ECB policy relative to the Fed's, European growth will have to continue outperforming U.S. growth. As we argued last week, the slack in the European jobs market is much greater than that in the U.S.1 Without outstanding growth, European inflationary dynamics will remain hampered by low wage growth. Meanwhile, the Fed is facing an environment congruent with high rates (Chart I-1), something that markets are ignoring as they are only anticipating two more hikes into June 2019, beyond the one anticipated next week. So what kind of future growth dynamics are we anticipating? World growth may not be about to plunge, but global activity is set to soften as China and the U.S. have been tightening monetary conditions in an environment replete with excess capacity. Indicators are already responding to this policy shift. Our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators has already rolled over sharply, a precursor to softening global LEIs (Chart I-2). This is a bigger problem for Europe than the U.S. Since 2010, the beta of euro area LEIs to global LEIs has been around 0.8, while for the U.S. the sensitivity is around 0.2. Thus, deteriorating growth conditions are a greater handicap for Europe, a region still much more reliant on trade and manufacturing as sources of growth. Chart I-1The Fed And Its Mandate Chart I-2Global Growth Passing Its Zenith Meanwhile, purely domestic economic conditions have been buoyant in the euro area and quite morose in the U.S., though the picture seems to be reversing. To make this judgment, we begin by evaluating a global growth factor, a global economic force that lifts or pulls down all boats, similar to a tide. Such a global growth factor should not just affect various countries through trade, but it should also impact their economies through financial linkages. In order to evaluate this phenomenon, we conducted a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the LEIs of 21 countries. We found that the combined factor 1 and factor 2 explains nearly 50% of global growth dynamics (Chart I-3). Once we estimated this global growth factor, we then proceeded to estimate how much it contributes to LEI gyrations in the U.S. and euro area, using the factor loadings of both relative to the two main components revealed by the PCA. With that information in hand, we then simply subtracted the European and U.S. impact from their respective LEIs. What is left reflects purely endogenous changes in the LEIs for the euro area and the U.S. This same procedure can be applied to any country. Through this exercise, we can see very well that European domestic conditions have been rebounding sharply since 2012. However, the pure domestic element of the U.S. LEIs has been falling steadily since late 2014, shortly after the U.S. dollar began its 27% rally (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Tide That##br## Lifts All Boats Chart I-4A Look At Purely Domestic##br## Growth Dynamics To a large degree, these differentiated dynamics make sense. 2012 marked the apex of the euro area crisis. The improvement in the domestic component of the European LEIs coincided with Mario Draghi's "whatever it takes" speech. This moment was crucial as it resulted in the normalization of private sector borrowing costs across the Eurozone. Thanks to the ensuing compression in break-up risk premia, Italian and Spanish private lending rates collapsed by 110 and 240 basis points over the following 24 months, respectively. Easy money was finally being transmitted to the private sector. Chart I-5Massive Tightening In 2014 In the U.S., the deterioration began after the dollar perked up massively, but also, after the Fed began tapering its purchases of securities, events associated with a 300 basis-point increase in the Wu-Xia shadow fed funds rate (Chart I-5). The combined effect of this monetary tightening resulted in a significant brake on economic activity, one made most evident by the deceleration in the domestic component of the LEIs. These forces seems to be reversing. Today, the dollar is trading in line with its March 2015 level, and while the fed funds rate has increased by 75 basis points, this still pales in comparison to the large increase in the shadow fed funds rates recorded between May 2014 and November 2015. Meanwhile in Europe, the lagged effects of the massive 15% decline in the trade-weighted euro between June 2014 and March 2015 is dissipating. These monetary dynamics partially explain why the domestic element of the European LEIs is rolling over while the U.S. one is improving. However, we think financial conditions play a larger role. U.S. financial conditions have greatly eased in recent months, while financial conditions in Europe have been deteriorating, suggesting domestic growth conditions will follow a similar path (Chart I-6). These crosscurrents are especially evident when looking at the relative European and U.S. domestic growth impulses vis-a-vis their relative financial conditions. Currently, the purely endogenous elements of growth in the euro area look set to roll over against those of the U.S. So if the international and domestic elements of growth in Europe are set to slow relative to the U.S., when should these dynamics begin to affect market pricing? Historically, the German Ifo survey has been one of the most reliable bellwethers of European economic activity. The same can be said of the ISM in the U.S. While the ISM rolled over three months ago, the Ifo is still at all-time highs. However, historically, one of the most reliable leading indicators of the Ifo has been none other than the ISM itself. Hence, the likelihood that the Ifo rolls over sharply by September is high, especially in the context of the observations made above (Chart I-7). With expectations that European growth will remain strong but that the U.S. is incapable of generating inflation, a weak ISM is well known, but a weak Ifo would be a surprise. Chart I-6Follow The Financial Conditions Chart I-7Where The ISM Goes, The IFO Follows When the Ifo underperforms the ISM, the euro tends to suffer (Chart I-8). This was not true in 2001, but back then the euro was trading 15% below its long-term fair value, and the U.S. was entering a recession. Today, the euro is trading at a more modest 5% discount to its long-term fair value, and BCA believes the U.S. is not on the verge of a recession. Moreover, on a short-term basis, the euro is already trading 6% above its interest rate and risk-aversion implied tactical fair value. Chart I-8If No U.S. Recession Emerges, A Falling IFO Equals A Falling Euro These dynamics also imply that the massive positive skew in economic surprises between the euro area and the U.S. should soon end, which is likely to prompt a re-think of the relative monetary policy stance between the ECB and the Fed, and therefore put an end to the recent sharp rally in the euro. Bottom Line: The ECB did not surprise markets this week. Yet, Mario Draghi made it very clear that despite an upgrade to forward guidance, the path toward achieving the central bank's inflation target continues to require very easy policy. How easy? Our view is that based on global dynamics and financial conditions, European growth could slow in the coming months, delaying the point in time when the euro area output gap closes. Meanwhile, investors are too conservative regarding the U.S.'s growth and inflation prospects, and therefore are not anticipating enough rate hikes from the Fed. What To Do With Momentum? The key issue for now is that the euro's momentum is extremely powerful and hard to fight. Indeed, the euro seems to have dissociated from fundamentals. While aggregate real rate differentials continue to move in favor of the U.S. dollar, the euro is ignoring these dynamics and instead has become overtaken by powerful flows into the euro area (Chart I-9). These dynamics may be stretched, but they could still have additional room to run. Non-commercial traders have fully purged their short bets on EUR/USD, and they have accumulated the most long-euro positions in three years. Additionally, our composite sentiment indicator, based on the positioning, sentiment, and 13-week rate-of-change in the currency, is now at elevated levels relative to the past three years (Chart I-10). The violence of these shifts highlights an improving risk-reward ratio to shorting the euro, but this could be of little solace: historically, both the composite sentiment measure and positioning in the euro have hit much higher levels. Technical indicators point to similar dilemmas. Both the EUR/USD intermediate-term technical indicator and its 13-week rate of change have hit levels congruent with a reversal (Chart I-11). However, these indicators have also displayed inertia in the past, with occasions such as in 2013, where their elevated readings did not preclude a higher EUR/USD. Chart I-9EUR/USD Is A Lone Wolf Chart I-10EUR/USD Is Overbought But...(1) Chart I-11EUR/USD Is Overbought But...(2) As a result, we are highly cognizant of the risks to our positive bet on the DXY (which due to its near 60% weighting in the euro is equivalent to a short euro bet). But the good news in the euro seems well priced in. In line with the 8% surge in the euro this year, the average analyst forecast for the euro for Q4 2017 moved from EUR/USD 1.05 to EUR/USD 1.12 (Chart I-12, top panel). Recent peaks in the euro have materialized when these forecasts hit 1.13, which we are very close to. At these levels, the optimism toward Europe seems fully discounted. Chart I-12When To Be Contrarian In FX In fact, the gap between the euro itself and the forecast is now decreasing (Chart I-12, bottom panel). This suggests that each new forecast upgrade is lifting the euro less and less, implying that buyers have already internalized these increasing forecasts and need ever better news, especially on the wage and inflation front, to lift the euro higher. Hence, while worried that the EUR/USD could move to 1.15 in a blink of an eye before reversing, we remain cautiously optimistic on our negative EUR/USD and our positive DXY stances. Bottom Line: At this point, the key problem with our view is that momentum is clearly in the euro's favor, a dangerous position for euro bears. While most indicators highlight that EUR/USD is overbought, these same metrics could in fact remain overbought for longer. However, investors have already massively upgraded their EUR/USD forecasts suggesting that much news is in the price, especially as each successive upgrade is showing diminishing returns in their capacity to lift EUR/USD spot rates. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion", dated June 2, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The soft patch in the U.S. economy continues: Unit labor costs growth has softened to 2.2%, a less-than-expected pace of 2.5%; Non-Manufacturing/Services sectors are looking weak with both PMI and ISM measures underperforming; Consumer credit also grew by USD 8.2 bn, underperforming the expected USD 15.5 bn. As a result, the dollar remains weak. While the data is worrying, we stand with the Fed's view. The Fed will hike in June, and when this soft patch proves temporary, it is likely that a September hike will materialize. With the ECB constrained in its capacity to move to a hawkish stance, it is possible for the USD to see some upside sooner rather than later. Report Links: Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro has witnessed a particularly strong two months due to positive surprises in data, but momentum somewhat slowed this week due to mixed data: Services PMI in Spain, Italy and France underperformed expectations, while Germany and the overall euro area outperformed; Retail sales increased at a 2.5% annual rate; German factory orders increased by 3.5% annually, which was less than expected. Even worse they contracted by 2.1% on a monthly basis; Overall GDP growth in the euro area outperformed expectations, being revised to 1.9%. Furthermore, Draghi reiterated the need for extremely easy conditions in order to stay on the path to reach the target inflation rate, especially as inflation forecasts were downgraded. If the European data cannot keep up with its current blistering pace, investors should again begin to wonder about the ECB's capacity to move away from what remain a dovish stance. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent economic data has been mixed in Japan: Consumer confidence came in at 43.6, increasing from last month. Bank lending annual growth came in at 3.2%, beating expectations. However, GDP annualized growth was greatly revised downward to 1%. Although we continue to be bullish on the yen on a short term basis, it would be preferable to play yen strength by shorting NZD/JPY rather than USD/JPY, as we believe that the correction in the U.S. dollar has run its course. Thus, we are looking to exit our short USD/JPY trade once it reaches 108. On a cyclical basis, the yield curve target implemented by the BoJ, along with a hawkish fed will weigh on Japanese real rates vis-à-vis U.S ones and consequently push the yen downward. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data has been mixed in the U.K.: Construction PMI came in at 56, blowing past expectations. Halifax house price annual growth came in at 3.3%, also outperforming expectations. However, Markit Services PMI came below expectations at 53.8. The results of the elections happening as of the date of this writing will create some volatility in the pound. A greater majority government by the conservatives would likely be a boost to the pound, as it will give Prime Minister May more leeway when negotiating the exit of the U.K. from the European Union. On the other hand, if labor wins enough seats to create a hung parliament, the pound could suffer as political uncertainty will once again reign supreme. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The Aussie experienced an upbeat week, appreciating almost 2.5%. A few positive data was recorded: TD Securities Inflation increased at a 2.8% annual rate, more than the previous 2.6% reading; GDP growth increased 1.7% annually, beating both yearly and quarterly expectations. Chinese imports were very strong, coming in at 22% growth on an annual pace, suggesting continued intake by the Middle Kingdom of what Australia exports. The GDP was a key driver in this week's rally. However, while the headline number was great, the details were more worrisome. Inventories led GDP growth, while exports subtracted most from it. This is peculiar considering that terms of trade increased at a 24.8% annual rate. This also predates the near 40% decline in iron ore futures. The trade balance for April also missed expectations greatly, coming in at 555 million, compared to the expected 1.95 million, setting up a poor start for Australia's second quarter. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The kiwi economy continues to improve: Headline and core inflation have both surpassed the 2% threshold, reaching 2.2% and 2.3% respectively in the first quarter of 2017. Meanwhile, nominal retail sales are growing at a healthy 7.5%. Considering the continued strength in the kiwi economy, the NZD should continue to outperform the AUD on a cyclical basis, given that Australia is much more sensitive to a slowdown in Chinese economic activity, which is beginning to suffer in response to the tightening campaign by the PBoC. On the other hand the upside for the NZD against the U.S. dollar remains limited. Not only is NZD/USD overbought on a short term basis, but the tight correlation between the kiwi and commodity prices should eventually weigh on this currency. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD went through a rough patch this week: The seasonally-adjusted measure of PMIs delivered a disappointing 53.8 reading compared to the expected 62; Building permits are contracting at a 0.2% monthly pace; Housing starts increased at 194,700, which was less than expected; On the plus side, house price growth was at 3.9% yoy, beating expectations of 3.3%. Oil was also a big player in the loonie's weakness. Crude oil inventories were higher than expectations by roughly 6 million barrels: a 3.464 million barrels decline in inventories was expected, while inventories increased at a 3.295 million barrels. The CAD remains oversold, but we remain bullish on it in the G10 space as investors have rarely been so short the Canadian currency as they currently are. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent economic data in Switzerland has been very positive: The unemployment rate came in at 3.2%, beating expectations. Headline inflation came in at 0.5%, higher than last month and beating expectations. Yesterday, the ECB underwehlmed bulls, as ECB president Mario Draghi stated that asset purchases will "run until the end of December 2017, or beyond, if necessary". We expect the ECB to ultimately find it very difficult to switch to a hawkish bias, especially relative to relative to other central banks, as pricing power in the euro area remains muted. On the other hand, Switzerland is slowly recovering, and a removal of the implied floor by the SNB on EUR/CHF could happen as early as the end of the year. Thus, we are already shorting this cross to take advantage of such an event. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 On Wednesday, oil inventories rose by 3.3 million against expectations of a 3.5 million draw. This caused oil prices to plunge by almost 4%. Nevertheless, the response of USD/NOK has been somewhat muted. This is in part due to the fact that real rate differentials matter more than oil for USD/NOK. Indeed, while oil is down almost 15% on the year, the NOK has actually appreciated slightly in the year against the dollar, given that rates in the U.S. have decreased substantially during the year. Thus, given that we expect a more hawkish Fed than the market anticipates, we are USD/NOK bulls. Additionally, we are also bullish on CAD/NOK, as the Norges Bank is likely to have a much more dovish bias than the BoC going forward. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has been depreciating this week on the back of disappointing industrial production figures, with the yearly measure increasing at a meagre 0.8% pace, much less than the anticipated 4.2%. Moreover, IP experienced a monthly contraction of 2.4%. Additionally, the recent Financial Stability Report also highlighted that "further measures need to be introduced to increase the resilience of the household sector and reduce risks", as well as vulnerabilities in the Swedish banking system. While we think USD/SEK's weakness is nearing its end, EUR/SEK will likely see some weakness in the near future, given its expensive level. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

The relative performance of the chemicals index has been sideways for two years, despite significant moves in some historically strongly correlated indicators. The U.S. dollar, with which the index varies negatively, has softened without a positive share price response (first panel). Further, the industrial production picture is generally more optimistic. Global purchasing manager survey sentiment remains near 20 year highs, boosting analyst sales expectations (second panel). However, the key headwind to the industry is not sales, it's the perennial overcapacity (third panel) which seems likely to worsen before it improves. The recent wave of mega M&A activity in the sector should (eventually) help alleviate the situation but it is still too early for us to be constructive on the sector. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CHEM - APD, ARG, CF, DOW, EMN, ECL, DD, FMC, IFF, LYB, MON, MOS, PPG, PX, SHW.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Asia. Along with a brief Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the U.S. is vulnerable to serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election, as a result of the widening gulf between elites and the rest. Trump, thus far, seems unlikely to bridge this gap. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The United States has produced too many elites, while popular well-being has fallen; Elite-controlled institutions have failed to protect households from the negatives of globalization and technological change; Tribalism, polarization, and money politics are preventing political compromise; Trump won by assaulting the "elites" but neither his policies, Congress, nor the economy look to improve well-being; With recession likely by 2019, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election. Feature Crime is increasing Trigger happy policing Panic is spreading God knows where We're heading Oh, make me wanna holler They don't understand Make me wanna holler They don't understand - Marvin Gaye, "Inner City Blues," 1971 If we had to explain the election of Donald Trump and the decision by U.K. voters to exit the EU with one chart it would be Chart 1. It depicts the relationship between high income inequality and low generational mobility and suggests that highly unequal societies develop structures that perpetuate unequal income through generations.1 The U.S. and the U.K. stand at the extreme of the relationship, with Italy close behind. Not surprisingly, the common people, "the plebs," in all three countries are dissatisfied with the arrangement. Low social mobility perpetuates unequal economic outcomes, throwing middle- and low-income voters into a sense of desperation. They fear that both their children's lot in life and their own is already decided, i.e. cannot and will not improve. A pre-election Gallup study of 125,000 American adults confirms that President Trump's support was strongest among voters in communities with poor health and low generational mobility.2 Of no relevance was whether respondents came from areas supposed to suffer most heavily from the ills that Trump opposed, i.e. communities exposed to global competition via trade, or those with high levels of immigration, or areas with relatively high unemployment and low incomes. America is supposed to be immune to income inequality because of social mobility. Equality of opportunity matters more than equality of outcome. This is the trade-off that has existed at the heart of America since its founding. For decades this trade-off has atrophied. Donald Trump was then elected to bring the U.S. back to its default setting. In this report, we explain why it may be too late and what will happen if he fails. If BCA's House View is correct, that a recession will occur by the end of 2019 (if not earlier), then the economic and political conditions are ripe for serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election.3 The Dynamic Of Elite Overproduction In Why Nations Fail, economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson tell a story of "How Venice Became A Museum."4 From the eleventh to fourteenth century, Venice was one of the richest places in the world. Behind its rapid economic expansion was the commenda, an early form of a joint-stock company formed for the duration of a single trading mission. It spurred Venice's ambitious entrepreneurs to find new trading routes by allowing them to share in the profits with the owners of capital who funded the risky journeys. As new families enriched themselves, political institutions grew more inclusive to accommodate them: in 1032, for instance, Venice held elections for its doge, or leader. An independent judiciary, private contracts, and bankruptcy laws followed. By 1330, Venice was a wealthy and strikingly modern republic with a population as large as that of Paris. The commenda system, however, had a dark side: creative destruction. Each new wave of young, enterprising explorers reduced the political privileges and profits of the established elites. In the late thirteenth century, these elites began to restrict membership in the Great Council, or legislature. Such efforts culminated in La Serrata ("The Closure") in 1297, which severely restricted access to the Great Council for new members but expanded it for families of established elites. An economic serrata quickly followed the political one, and the commenda system that underpinned Venice's wealth was replaced by a state monopoly on trade in 1314. The rest is, as they say, history. Venice rapidly declined as the newly closed economic and political institutions failed to deal with the rise of Portugal and Spain, the revolution in navigation and discovery of new trade routes to the East, and various regional attempts to encroach on its wealth and power. After the seventeenth century this decline accelerated. Today, its only source of income is tourism, which parlays the pre-Serrata wonders - such as the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Cathedral - for cash that the city desperately needs to keep itself afloat.5 Acemoglu and Robinson make the case in their research that societies with both politically and economically inclusive institutions are rare. They cite a number of reasons for this, but the one that is most relevant to this report is "elite overproduction." Elites have a perfectly human and rational desire to perpetuate their political and economic privileges and pass them on to their children. A society that truly promotes equality of opportunity is one that leaves its elites to the fates. The elite desire to pass on privileges to future generations is a constant, but human conflict and state collapse are cyclical. Peter Turchin, a biologist who studies human conflict, has noted that periods of intense conflict in societies tend to recur within 40-to-60-year cycles. He posits that elite overproduction - and its counterpart, low societal well-being - is to blame.6 In post-industrial societies, low and falling labor costs are one of the principal conditions for elite multiplication. International trade, immigration, technological advancements, and investment in human and physical capital all suppress labor costs, benefiting the consumers of labor, i.e. the elites. Globalization has played a particularly important role in suppressing wages in the modern developed world. It expanded the global supply of labor by opening up new populations to capitalism (Chart 2), leading to suppressed wage growth for the middle classes in advanced economies (Chart 3). This process has been reinforced by technological change, particularly innovation that is biased in favor of capital (i.e. saving on labor costs) (Chart 4). Chart 2Globalization Expanded ##br##The Global Supply Of Labor... As elites capture an ever-greater share of the economic pie (even a growing economic pie), they become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption, which drives inter-elite competition for social status. Everyone tries to "keep up with the Joneses," which for many is only achievable by supplementing wages with debt (Chart 5).7 The demand for elite goods - say homes in the "right" zip codes - exhibits runaway growth as the cost of elite membership rises and as sub-elites with rising income levels compete for access (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Supplanted Income Chart 6Middle Class Incomes Don't ##br##Buy Middle Class Goods Focusing on the U.S., Turchin shows that Americans are today living in the second "Gilded Age." His research shows that "elite overproduction" has not been this high, and "population well-being" this low, since the early twentieth century (Chart 7). He calculates population well-being as a combination of general health, family formation, and wage and employment prospects. All indicators are currently in decline relative to history, save for health. But even life expectancy is taking a hit, albeit for select demographic groups most negatively impacted by poor job and wage prospects (Chart 8). For elite overproduction, Turchin relies on standard measures: wealth inequality, university education cost, and political polarization. This makes intuitive sense, since major policies aimed at reversing entrenched inequality can only be enacted after polarization has fallen due to events that subdued elites, such as major economic calamities or geopolitical challenges - e.g. the New Deal following the Great Depression, or the Great Society following World War II and amidst the Cold War. The danger of extreme polarization between elite prosperity and general well-being is that it is theoretically and empirically associated with political polarization, social unrest, and war. Acemoglu and Robinson detail case after case - from ancient Mayans and Romans to modern French and Japanese - in which the competition for resources between elites and the general population led to civil strife or all-out warfare. Meanwhile Turchin's research shows that politically motivated violence in the U.S. (Chart 9), which last peaked 50 years ago in the late 1960s, is associated with large gaps in well-being between elites and the masses (Chart 10).8 Bottom Line: Elite overproduction has been identified by academic research as a constant source of social instability throughout human history. Elites subvert inclusive political and economic institutions in order to stifle creative destruction, which would enrich new entrepreneurs but dilute elite privileges. As such, societies that prevent elite overproduction and promote equality of opportunity (and creative destruction) are successful in perpetuating themselves over the long term. Repatrimonialization In The U.S. Chart 11Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s A sure sign that a society is in decline? When elites strive to hold onto their status and create barriers to entry for others. In the case of Venice, these barriers were overtly political. Le Serrata was followed by the introduction of Libro d'Oro (the "Golden Book"), which created an official registry of Venetian families that would be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Great Council. As the population revolted against such measures, Venice introduced a police force in 1310, with other coercive methods to follow. Today, the U.S. exhibits similar signs of institutional capture by the elites, albeit updated for the twenty-first century. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama calls this process "repatrimonialization." It occurs amidst long periods of economic prosperity and peace, as elites lose sight of their symbiotic relationship with fellow citizens and begin to serve their own "tribal" interests.9 Note in the above Chart 7 that elite overproduction, as defined by Turchin, reaches its peak after long periods of peace: the first high point came in 1902, 37 years after the Civil War, and the second came in 2007, 62 years after World War II. The latter case in particular suggests that as threats dissipate, elites lose sight of personal sacrifices - military service, income redistribution, public service, public works - that are required for geopolitical competition with peer challengers. At the height of the Cold War (1949 to 1962), for example, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 92% (Chart 11).10 The point is not the tax rate, but that elites were far more acquiescent to fiscal sacrifices on behalf of the public. Fukuyama points to the U.K. and the U.S. as the two countries that have been the least politically responsive to the challenges of globalization and technological change in the developed world. In the case of the U.S., this is because interest groups are capable of steering policy towards further globalization and technological change. Both processes have also empowered elites, which have steered policy towards less redistribution and more austerity for the middle classes. The data is clear on this point. Despite Europe's being as exposed to globalization and technological advances as the U.S., European median wage growth has kept pace with GDP growth since 2000, whereas in the U.S. it not only failed to keep up but declined over the same time period (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe Shielded ##br##Households From Global Winds What are some of the mechanisms of repatrimonialization in the U.S. and can they be reversed? The good news is that elite capture of state institutions is now out in the open and easy to identify. Both Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned explicitly against it. The bad news is that it is unlikely to be reversed endogenously, at least not without a catalyst. What follows is a short description of the most salient problems facing the country as a result of elite entrenchment. Campaign Financing The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave rise to political action committees, also known as Super PACs. These groups are allowed to receive unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they do not cooperate, coordinate, or directly contribute funding to actual candidates. This supposed firewall, however, is a fig leaf. The elimination of caps on this type of campaign financing allows single-issue groups and even single individuals with deep pockets to fund fringe candidates or support single-issue ballot measures that would otherwise lack sources of funding. This is especially important in primary elections where turnout is very low. In response, incumbent legislators have to tread carefully and avoid angering individual donors or Super PACs that could single-handedly fund a campaign against them in the primary elections, especially since the average cost of a congressional election campaign is relatively low at $1.4 million (a small amount compared to the funds that can be brought to bear by activist donors). In 2012, more than 40% of the campaign donations used in all federal elections was contributed by 0.01% of the voting-age population. That means that about 24,000 people were responsible for a near-majority of all contributions.11 Two other findings reported in the academic literature provide insight on how (and if) that money might steer policy. First, a study confirmed the general belief that the wealthiest Americans are much more conservative than the general public when it comes to tax policy and economic regulation.12 Second, another study found that when the policy preferences of the top 10% of income earners diverge from the preferences of the bottom 50%, the policy outcome is more likely to reflect the intentions of the former group.13 Polarization Political polarization benefits elites by impeding the democratic process and locking in rules that are beneficial to the status quo. Chart 13 shows that income inequality and political polarization in the sphere of economic policy are correlated.14 The simple reason the two are so highly correlated is because the right-of-center Republican Party increasingly opposes redistribution, while the left-of-center Democratic Party favors it. As the two parties diverge on matters of economic principle, compromises become virtually impossible, locking redistributive efforts at the current levels favored by the elites. Polarization is subsequently reinforced by electoral-district "gerrymandering" and an extremely bifurcated and increasingly distrusted news media. Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter due to their superior position at the state level) have redrawn administrative boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 14). Chart 13Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 14Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Tribalization Elite overproduction often leads to the tribalization of society. Elites, to ensure that they are not torn asunder by the plebs, mobilize the population behind various causes that divert attention away from themselves, i.e. away from the real cause of social malaise. These causes are "wedge issues," in today's parlance. They can include identity politics, religious issues, as well as foreign policy. The Democratic Party has often relied on identity issues to mobilize support, but the effort kicked into high gear as it evolved from a redistributive "Old Left" party to the more centrist, "Third Way," neo-liberal orientation of Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to reverse this trend and overtly downplayed identity politics during his presidential campaign. He saw his party's neo-liberal turn as an elite-driven effort to distract from the real problems affecting low-income households. Hillary Clinton, the neo-liberal Democrat, by contrast, suffered as a result of the perception that she was an elite. The problem is that these wedge issues have begun to ossify into actual identities. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on a list of 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to other elements of identity. This has not always been the case, as Chart 15 shows. We suspect that this data will grow even starker after the divisive, borderline hysterical 2016 campaign. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become almost tribal in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Bottom Line: America's repatrimonialization is advanced. The democratic process, which is supposed to adjudicate between interest groups and regulate elite economic and political privileges, has been drawn to a halt by polarization, the political influence of big money, and emerging tribalism between non-elites. It is extremely difficult to see how these hurdles can be overcome via America's regular political process. As such, they will be resolved only after some kind of crisis, whether endogenous or exogenous. Will Trump Fix It? President Donald Trump famously said in his nomination speech at the Republican Convention, "I alone can fix it." In a way, he may be correct. Although he is very much part of the American economic elite, he has no links to the D.C. establishment and owes no favors to special interest groups.15 His entire campaign personified the conclusions of this report: that the U.S. economy has been captured by economic and political elites and that the well-being of regular citizens is in the doldrums. It is unfair to judge President Trump's record and legacy based on a little over four months in office. However, we lean heavily towards the conclusion that his efforts to undermine American patricians will ultimately fail. Here is why: Policy President Trump does not have much of a legislative record. Nonetheless, his first major piece of legislation - the Obamacare repeal and replace bill - would, in its current form, leave 14 million people without health care - and an estimated 24 million by 2026. If not substantially revised, the bill is likely to impose a roughly $445 billion burden on U.S. households in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts that Trump has promised (Chart 16). Further throwing Trump's plebeian credentials into doubt is his second signature legislative act: tax reform. His campaign proposal fell largely in line with previous Republican efforts, which, it should be noted, have contributed greatly to elite overproduction in the U.S. (Chart 17). Trump's original proposal would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of middle-class Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.16 We expect that his White House team will adjust this original plan to offer middle-class tax cuts, but the main thrust of the effort is still to eliminate estate taxes and lower the top marginal rates significantly. Chart 17Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites On trade and immigration, Trump has little record to show. His meeting with President Xi Jinping of China revealed that he is like previous presidents in talking tough about Chinese trade on the campaign trail yet lacking the desire to take aggressive action once in office. We expect that Trump will eventually pivot towards greater protectionism, but it is not clear that it will be executed in a way that actually improves household well-being.17 Congress So far Trump has shown that he is more interested in getting legislation passed than shaping it in a populist way. For example, he has urged Congress to pass the Obamacare replacement even though many conservative Senators are wary of its negative impact on households. If he adopts the same strategy with tax reform, we would suspect that he will err on the side of "getting things done," rather than fulfilling his campaign pledges to blue-collar workers. The problem for Trump is the same problem President Obama had: polarization. Trump would be far more successful in passing populist legislation if he developed a working relationship with Democrats, who ostensibly have discarded the elitism of the Clinton years. Yet to do so he would have to "betray" his only friends, leaving himself vulnerable should the Democrats refuse to play ball. He is thus stuck with partisan Republican policies, which means voters are stuck with a lack of compromise. Macroeconomics Populists everywhere have one overarching goal when they come to power: boosting nominal GDP growth (Chart 18). We suspect that Trump will ultimately get tax reform through Congress and that it will be moderately stimulative.18 The problem is that the U.S. economic recovery is already far advanced. As such, even moderate stimulus could hasten the timing of an economic recession. Given the lack of major economic imbalances, it is unlikely that such a recession would freeze the financial system and be as painful as that of 2008-9. Nonetheless, the trade-off between moderate stimulus and a quicker recession is unlikely to benefit Trump's voters. Bottom Line: Donald Trump has tapped into the deep social malaise in the U.S. and responded to the populace's demands that elite overproduction be curbed. Unfortunately, his track record during the campaign and as president gives little evidence that he will be successful in restraining America's elites. Especially because he is forced to cooperate with them through Congress, and in a way that does not encourage broad compromise. Investment Implications We suspect that polarization will grow throughout Trump's term and that he will largely be unsuccessful in pursuing an agenda that genuinely increases opportunity or well-being. In fact, we would bet that most of his policies will contribute to, not reduce, elite overproduction in the U.S. What happens when Donald Trump fails to reform America and resolve its elite overproduction problem? If a recession occurs by 2019 - our House View at BCA - then the economic and political conditions suggest that a serious revolt is in the cards by the time of the 2020 election. By this we mean not just an electoral revolt, like Trump's election, but also a concrete increase in social tension and unrest. A repeat of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, yet more violent, could be in cards. By the 2020 election, we would also suspect that our clients may look back fondly, with nostalgia, for Senator Bernie Sander's campaign platform, which by that point may look downright centrist. Investors should prepare for an increase in economic populist policy proposals, from both the left and the right. If economic policy begins to steer towards populism, investors should bet on higher inflation and thus higher nominal - but potentially lower real - Treasury yields. The independence of the Fed could also suffer, putting considerable downward pressure on the USD. In this environment, equities will outperform bonds, but global assets should outperform those of the U.S. Gold, which has failed as a safe-haven asset in the contemporary deflationary era, should become attractive once again.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Miles Corak, "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility," Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Discussion paper no. 7520, July 2013, available at iza.org. 2 Please see Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell, "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case Of Donald Trump," Gallup, dated November 2, 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. 3 Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012). 5 Literally. 6 Please see Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 7 Please see Neal Fligstein et al, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Inequality and Indebtedness, in the Era of the Housing Price Bubble, 1999-2007," presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2015. 8 Please see Peter Turchin, "Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780-2010," Journal of Peace Research 49:4 (2012), pp. 577-91. 9 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2014). 10 Today's dispersed terrorist threat does not even come close to approximating the threat that the Soviet Union during the Cold War presented to the U.S., and as such we do not consider it seriously as an existential threat to either the U.S. or the West. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Adam Bonica et al., "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (Summer 2013), pp. 103-24. 12 Please see Benjamin Page et al., "Democracy And The Policy Preferences Of Wealthy Americans," Perspectives On Politics 11:1 (March 2013), pp. 51-73. 13 Please see Martin Gilens, "Inequality And Democratic Responsiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly 69:5 (2005), pp. 778-796. 14 The latter measure of polarization is one of Turchin's factors in elite overproduction. 15 Save for the Kremlin! We jest, we jest. At least, we think we jest ... 16 Several groups would have seen no substantial tax cuts under his original campaign plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would have seen their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would have seen their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would have seen their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. For our original discussion, see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.