Euro Area

Highlights Markets have gone too far in pricing out the Republican's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections. A bill that at least cuts taxes should be forming by year end. The risk is that continued political turbulence, now including the possibility of impeachment, distracts Congress and delays or completely derails tax reform plans. Fortunately for the major global equity markets, corporate profits are providing solid support. We expect U.S. EPS growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at just under 20%. The projected profit acceleration is even more impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. Corporations are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end that will favor the latter two bourses in local currency terms. EPS growth will fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017, but what is more important for equity indexes is the direction of 12-month forward EPS expectations, which remain in an uptrend. The positive earnings backdrop means that stocks will outperform bonds for the remainder of the year even if Congress fails to pass any market-friendly legislation. The FOMC is "looking through" the recent soft economic data and slower inflation, and remains on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year. The impact of the Fed's balance sheet runoff on the Treasury market will be limited by several factors, but a shrinking balance sheet and Fed rate hikes will force bond yields to rise faster than is currently discounted. Policy divergence will push the dollar higher. The traditional relationship between the euro/USD and short-term yield differentials should re-establish following the French election. The euro could reach parity before the next move is done. "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Chinese growth has slowed but the authorities are easing policy, which will stabilize growth and support base metals. That said, we remain more upbeat on oil prices than base metals. Feature Investors have soured on the prospects for U.S. tax reform in recent weeks, but the latest travails in Washington inflicted only fleeting damage on U.S. and global bourses. The S&P 500 appears to have broken above the 2400 technical barrier as we go to press. Market expectations for a more tepid Fed rate hike cycle, lower Treasury yields and related dollar softness undoubtedly provided some support. But, more importantly, corporate profits are positively surprising in the major economies and this is not just an energy story. The good news on company earnings should continue to drive stock prices higher this year in absolute terms and relative to bond prices. It is a tougher call on the dollar and the direction of bond yields. We remain short duration and long the dollar, but much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and fiscal policy. A Death Knell For U.S. Tax Reform? Chart I-1 highlights that the market now sees almost a zero chance that the Republicans will ever be able to deliver any meaningful tax cuts or infrastructure spending. Many believe that mushrooming political scandals encumbering President Trump will distract the GOP and delay or derail tax reform. Indeed, impeachment proceedings would be a major distraction, although this outcome would not necessarily lead to an equity bear market. The historical record shows that the economy is much more important than politics for financial markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists looked at three presidential impeachments, covering the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974) and the President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999).1 Watergate was the only episode that coincided with a bear market, but it is difficult to pin the market downturn on Nixon's impeachment since the U.S. economy entered one of the worst post-war recessions in 1973 that was driven by tight Fed policy and an oil shock. Impeachment would require that Trump loses support among the Republican base, which so far has not happened. The President still commands the support of 84% of Republican voters (Chart I-2). Investors should monitor this support level as an indicator of the President's political capital and the risk of impeachment. Chart I-1Fading Hopes For Tax Reform We believe that markets have gone too far in pricing out Trump's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections, and tax reform and deregulation are two key areas where the President and congressional Republicans see eye to eye. The odds are good that an agreement to cut taxes will be formed by year end. Congressional leaders want tax reform to be revenue neutral, but finding sufficient areas to cut spending will be extremely difficult. They may simply require that tax cuts are paid for in a 10-year window. This makes it possible to lower taxes upfront and promise non-specific spending cuts and revenue raising measures down the road. Or, Congress may pass tax reform that is not revenue neutral through the reconciliation process, which would require that tax cuts sunset at some point in the future. Tax cuts would give stocks a temporary boost either way but, as we discuss below, it may be better for corporate profits in the medium term if Congress fails to deliver any fiscal stimulus. Profits, Beats And Misses While economists fret over the soft U.S. economic data so far this year, profit growth is quietly accelerating in the background (Chart I-3). On a 4-quarter moving total basis, S&P 500 earnings-per-share were up by more than 13% in the first quarter (84% reporting). We expect growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at about 18%, before moderating in 2018. Profit growth is accelerating outside of the energy sector. The projected acceleration in EPS growth is equally impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. The favorable profit picture in the major economies reflects two key factors. First, profits are rebounding from a poor showing in 2015/16, when EPS was dragged down by the collapse in oil prices and a global manufacturing recession. Oil prices have since rebounded and global industrial production is recovering as expected (Chart I-4). Our short-term forecasting models for real GDP, based on a mixture of hard data and surveys, continue to flag a pickup in economic growth in the major economies (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Top-Down Profit Projection Chart I-4EPS Highly Correlated With Industrial Production Chart I-5GDP Growth Poised To Accelerate The U.S. model's forecast paints an overly rosy picture, but it does support our view that Q1 softness in the hard data reflected temporary factors that will give way to a robust rebound in the second and third quarters. The Eurozone economy is really humming at the moment, as highlighted by our model and recent readings from the IFO and purchasing managers' surveys. Indeed, these indicators are consistent with real GDP growth of nearly 3%! Our GDP models are also constructive for Japan and the U.K., although not nearly as robust as in the U.S. and Eurozone. Chart I-6Profit Margins On The Rise Second, the corporate sectors in the major economies are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. This is the case even in the U.S., where labor market slack has largely been absorbed. Indeed, margins rose in Q1 2017 for the third quarter in a row (Chart I-6). Our indicators suggest that the corporate sector has gained some pricing power at a time when wage gains are taking a breather.2 The hiatus of wage pressure may not last long, and we expect the "mean reversion" in profit margins to resume next year. But for now, our short-term EPS growth model remains upbeat for the next 3-6 months (not shown). Profit margins are also on the rise in Japan and the Eurozone. Margins in the latter appear to have the most upside potential of the three major markets, given the fact that current levels are still depressed by historical standards, and that there remains plenty of slack in the European labor market. We are not incorporating any margin expansion in Japan because they are already very high. Nonetheless, we do not expect any "mean reversion" in margins over the next year either, because the business sector is going to great lengths to avoid any increase in the wage bill despite an extremely tight labor market. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end: The U.S. is further ahead in the global profit mini recovery and year-ago EPS comparisons will become more difficult by the end of the year. The drag on corporate profits in 2017 from previous dollar strength will be larger than the currency drag in the Eurozone according to our models, assuming no change in trade-weighted exchange rates in the forecast period (Chart I-7). The pass-through of past yen movements will be a net boost to EPS growth for Japanese companies this year.3 Currency shifts would favor the Japanese and the Eurozone markets versus the U.S. even more if the dollar experiences another upleg. We expect the dollar to appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms. A 10% broad-based dollar appreciation would trim EPS growth by 2½ percentage points, although most of this would occur in 2018 due to lags (Chart I-8). Eurozone and Japanese EPS growth would receive a lift of 2 and ½ percentage points, respectively, as their currencies depreciate versus the dollar. Chart I-7Currency Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-8A 10% Dollar Rise Would Trim Profits Finally, the fact that profits in Japan and the Eurozone are more leveraged to overall economic growth than in the U.S. gives the former two markets the edge as global industrial production continues to recover this year and into 2018. Japanese and Eurozone equity market indexes also have a higher beta with respect to the global equity index. The implication is that we remain overweight these two markets relative to the U.S. on a currency hedged basis. Lofty Expectations Even though the message from our EPS models is upbeat, our forecasts still fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017. Is this a risk for the equity market, especially in the U.S. where valuations are stretched? Investors are well aware that bottom-up estimates are perennially optimistic. Table I-1 compares the beginning-of-year EPS growth estimate with the actual end-of-year outcome for 2007-2016. Not surprisingly, bottom-up analysts massively missed the mark in the recession. But even outside of 2008, analysts significantly over-estimated earnings in seven out of nine years. Despite this, the S&P 500 rose sharply in most cases. One exception was 2015, when the S&P 500 fell by 0.7%. Plunging oil and material prices contributed to an EPS growth "miss" of seven percentage points. Chart I-9 highlights that the level of the 12-month forward EPS estimate fell that year, unlike in the other years since the Great Recession. Valuations are more demanding today than in the past, but the message is that attaining bottom-up EPS year-end estimates is less important for the broad market than the trend in 12-month forward estimates (which remains up at the moment). Chart I-9S&P 500 Follows ##br##12-month Forward EPS The bottom line is that the backdrop is constructive for equities even if the Republicans are unable to push through any fiscal stimulus. In fact, it may be better for the stock market in the medium term if the GOP fails to pass any meaningful legislation. The U.S. economy does not need any demand stimulus at the moment (although measures to boost the supply side of the economy would help lift profits over the long term). The current long-in-the-tooth U.S. expansion is likely to stretch further in the absence of stimulus, extending the moderate growth/low inflation/low interest rate backdrop that has been positive for risk assets in recent years. The Fed's Balance Sheet: It's Diet Time The minutes from the May FOMC meeting reiterated that policymakers plan to begin scaling back on reinvesting the proceeds of its maturing securities of Treasurys and MBS by the end of the year. The Fed is leaning toward a gradual tapering of reinvestment in order to avoid shocking the bond market. Still, investors are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the balance sheet runoff, especially given that memories of the 2013 "taper tantrum" are still fresh. Chart I-10 presents a forecast for the flow of Treasurys available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by foreign official institutions and by the Fed. The bottom panel shows a similar calculation for the aggregate supply of government bonds from the U.S., Japan, the Eurozone and the U.K. While the supply of Treasurys has been positive since 2012, the net flow has been negative for these four economies as a whole because of aggressive quantitative easing programs. This year will see the largest contraction in the supply of government bonds available to the private sector, at US$800 billion. The flow will become less negative in 2018 even if the Fed were to keep its balance sheet unchanged (mostly due to assumed ECB tapering). If the Fed goes ahead with its balance sheet reduction plan, the net supply of government bonds from the major economies will move slightly into positive territory for the first time since 2014. There is disagreement among academics about whether quantitative easing (QE) directly depressed bond yields by restricting the supply of high-quality fixed income assets, or whether the impact on yields was solely via the "signaling effect" for the path of future short rates. Either way, balance sheet runoff will likely have some impact on bond yields. A good starting point is to employ an empirical estimate of the impact of QE. The IMF has modeled long-term Treasury yields based on a number of economic and financial variables and the stock of assets held by the Fed as a share of GDP. Just for exposition purposes, let us take an extreme example and assume that the Fed simply terminates all re-investment as of January 2018 (i.e. the runoff is not tapered). In this case, the amount of bank reserves held at the Fed would likely evaporate by 2021. This represents a contraction of roughly 10 percentage points of GDP (Chart I-11). Applying the IMF interest rate model's coefficient of -0.09, it implies that long-term Treasury yields and mortgage rates would rise by 90 basis points from the "portfolio balance" effect alone. Chart I-11Fed Balance Sheet Runoff Scenario However, it is more complicated than that. The impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: The balance sheet may never fully revert to historic norms relative to GDP. Some academic experts are recommending that the Fed maintain a fairly large balance sheet by historical standards because of the need in financial markets for short-term, risk-free assets that would diminish if there are fewer excess bank reserves available. Banks, for example, are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years. As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimated that a $675 billion reduction in the size of the Fed's balance sheet is equivalent to a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate (although the authors admit that the confidence band around this estimate is extremely wide).4 We expect that the impact of runoff alone will be much less than the 90 basis point estimate discussed above. Still, the combination of balance sheet shrinkage and Fed rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Fed Outlook: Mostly About Inflation The May FOMC minutes confirmed that the FOMC is "looking through" the soft economic data in the first quarter, chalking it up to temporary factors such as shifts in inventories. They are also inclined to believe that the moderation in core CPI inflation in recent months is temporary. The message is that policymakers remain on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year, in line with the 'dot plot' forecast. The market is pricing almost a 100% chance of a June rate hike. However, less than two full rate hikes are expected over the next year, which is far too benign in our view. Investors have been quick to conclude that recent economic data have convinced Fed officials to shift from a "gradual" pace of rate hikes to a "glacial" pace. Treasurys rallied on this shift in Fed expectations and a decline in long-term inflation expectations. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dropped to about 1.8%, the lowest level since before the U.S. election. This appears to us that the bond market over-reacted to the drop in core CPI inflation from 2.2% in February to 1.9% in April. The evolution of actual inflation will be critical to the outlook for the Fed and Treasury yields in the coming months. Our U.S. fixed-income strategists have simulated a traditional Phillips Curve model of inflation (Chart I-12).5 The model projects that core PCE inflation will reach 2.1% by December, even assuming no change in the unemployment rate or the trade-weighted dollar. Inflation ends the year not far below the 2% target even in an alternative scenario in which we assume that the dollar appreciates and that the full-employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed currently assumes. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Should End Year At 2% Thus, the trend in inflation should reinforce the FOMC's bias to keep tightening policy, forcing the bond market to reassess the pace of rate hikes discounted in the curve. That said, if we are wrong and inflation does not trend higher in the next 3-4 months, then it is the FOMC that will be forced to reassess and our short duration recommendation will probably not pan out on a six month horizon. Longer-term, last month's Special Report highlighted that we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 20, builds on that theme with a look at the impact of technological progress on equilibrium bond yields. With respect to credit spreads, the state of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets and the overall stance of monetary policy will continue to be the main drivers of the credit cycle. If unwinding the balance sheet leads to a premature tightening of financial conditions, then the Fed will proceed more slowly on rate hikes. The crucial indicator to watch is core PCE inflation. Credit spreads will remain fairly well contained until core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target. At that point, the pace of monetary normalization will ramp up, putting spreads at risk of widening. Stay overweight corporate bonds within fixed income portfolios for now. While the Fed's balance sheet reduction by itself may not have a big impact on the dollar, we still believe the currency has more upside because of the divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) on the other. The BoJ will hold the 10-year JGB near to zero for quite some time. The ECB will also not be in a position to tighten policy for an extended period, outside of removing negative short rates and tapering QE purchases a bit further in 2018. The euro has appreciated versus the dollar even as two-year real interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar since the end of March. This divergence probably reflects euro short-covering following the market-friendly French election outcome. Next up are the two rounds of French legislative elections in June. Polls support the view that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Republicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature. Such an election outcome would make possible the passage of genuine structural reforms that would suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive. Investors may be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus. In the meantime, we do not see any risk factors emanating from the Eurozone that could upset the global equity applecart in the near term. Moreover, the traditional relationship between the euro/USD exchange rate and 2-year real yield differentials should now re-establish. The implication is that the euro could reach parity before the next move is done. Dr. Copper? The recent setback in the commodity pits has added to investor angst regarding global growth momentum. The LMEX base metals index is up almost 25% on a year-ago basis, but has fallen by 5% since February (Chart I-13). From their respective peaks earlier this year, zinc and copper are down about 7-10%, nickel has dropped by 18% and iron ore has lost almost half of its value. Is the venerable "Dr. Copper" sending an important warning about world growth? Chart I-13What Are Commodities Telling Us? Some of our global leading economic indicators have edged lower this year, as we have discussed in previous reports. Nonetheless, the decline in base metals prices likely has more to do with other factors, such as an unwinding of the surge in speculative demand that immediately followed the U.S. election last autumn. Speculators may be disappointed by the lack of progress on Republican promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. The main story for base metals demand and prices, however, is the Chinese real estate sector. China accounts for roughly 50% of world consumption for each of the major metals. The Chinese authorities are trying to cool the property market and transition to a more consumer spending-oriented economy, thereby reducing the dependence on exports, capital spending and real estate as growth drivers. Fiscal policy tightened last year and new regulations were introduced to limit housing speculation. The effect of policy tightening can be seen in our Credit and Fiscal Spending Impulse indicator, which has been softening since mid-2016 (Chart I-14). The economy held up well last year, but the policy adjustment resulted in a peaking of the PMI at year-end. Growth in housing starts also appears to be rolling over. Both the PMI and housing starts are correlated with commodity prices. The good news is that BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not expect a major downshift in Chinese real GDP growth this year, which means that commodity import demand should rebound: The authorities wish to slow credit growth, but there is no incentive for the authorities to crunch the economy given that consumer price inflation is still low and the surge in producer price inflation appears to have peaked. Monetary conditions have tightened a little in recent months, but overall conditions are not restrictive. Both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up noticeably this year (Chart I-15). Finally, the PBoC re-started its Medium-Term Lending Facility and recently made the largest one-day cash injection into the financial system in nearly four months. Chart I-14China Is The Main Story ##br##For Base Metals Demand Chart I-15Direct Fiscal Spending And ##br##Infrastructure Have Picked Up Recently Export growth will continue to accelerate based on our model (not shown). The upturn in the profit cycle and firming output prices should boost capital spending. Robust demand will ensure that housing construction will continue to grow at a healthy pace. Households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high last quarter. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but this will not short-circuit the recovery in housing construction. Fading fears about a China meltdown may give commodities a lift later this year. Our commodity strategists are particularly positive on crude oil, as extended production cuts from OPEC and Russia outweigh the impact of surging shale production, allowing bloated inventories to moderate. In contrast, the backdrop is fairly benign for base metals. Our commodity strategists do not see the conditions for a major bull or bear phase on a 6-12 month horizon. Within commodity portfolios, they recommend a benchmark allocation to base metals, an underweight in agricultural products and an overweight in oil. From a broader perspective, our key message is that "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Investment Conclusions: Accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a healthy tailwind and suggests that stocks could perform well under a couple of different scenarios in the second half of 2017. If the rebound in U.S. economic growth from the poor first quarter is unimpressive and it appears that Congress will be sidetracked by political turmoil in the White House, then the S&P 500 should benefit from the 'goldilocks' combination of healthy profit growth, low bond yields, an accommodative Fed and a soft dollar. If, instead, U.S. growth rebounds strongly and Congress makes progress on the broad outline of a tax reform bill over the summer months, then stocks should benefit from the prospect of stronger growth in 2018. Rising bond yields and a firmer dollar would provide some offset for stocks, but would not derail the equity bull market as long as inflation remains below the Fed's target. Our model suggests that U.S. inflation will remain below-target for the next several months, but could be near 2% by year end. This scenario would set the stage for a more aggressive Fed in 2018, a surge in the dollar and possibly a bear market in risk assets next year. We are therefore comfortable in predicting that the stock-to-bond total return ratio will continue to rise for at least the remainder of this year. The tough part relates to bond yields and the dollar, since the above two scenarios have very different implications for these two asset classes. Our base case is closer to the second scenario, such that we remain below benchmark in duration and long the dollar. That said, much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and U.S. politics. Both are particularly difficult to forecast. A failure for core PCE inflation to pick up in the next 3-4 months and/or continuing political scandals in Washington would force us to reconsider our asset allocation. Of course, there are other risks to consider, including growing mercantilism in the U.S., Sino-American tensions and North Korea. At the top of the list are China and Italy. (1) China China remains our geopolitical strategists' top pick as the catalyst most likely to scuttle our upbeat view on global risk assets in 2017.6 Our base case assumption is that policymakers will not enact wide-scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans and bankruptcies and defaults, ahead of the Fall Party Congress. The regulatory crackdown so far seems merely to keep the financial sector in check for a while. The government has already stepped back somewhat in the face of the liquidity squeeze, and fiscal policy has been loosened (as mentioned above). All of the key Communist Party statements have emphasized that stability remains a priority. Nonetheless, it may be difficult for the authorities to manage the deleveraging process given nose-bleed levels of private-sector leverage. Politicians could misjudge the fragility of the financial system and investors might front-run the reform process, sending asset prices down well in advance of policy implementation. (2) Italy We have flagged the next Italian election as a key risk for markets because of polls showing that voters have become disillusioned with the euro. It appeared that an election would not take place until 2018, and we have downplayed European elections as a risk factor for 2017. However, the 5-Star Movement has now backed a proportional electoral system, which raises the chances of an autumn election in Italy. This would obviously spark turbulence in financial markets in the months leading up to the event. Turning to emerging markets, the pickup in global growth and a modest bounce in commodity prices would support this asset class. However, our view that the dollar is headed higher on the back of Fed rate hikes keeps us from getting too excited about EM stocks, bonds or currencies. Our other recommendations include the following: Within global government bond portfolios, overweight JGBs and underweight Treasurys. Gilts and core Eurozone bonds are at benchmark. Underweight the periphery of Europe. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Overweight the dollar versus the other major currencies. Overweight small caps stocks versus large in the U.S. market. Stay exposed to oil-related assets, and favor oil to base metals within commodity portfolios. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2017 Next Report: June 29, 2017 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Overview," April 017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Currency shifts affect earnings with a lag, which in captured by our models. 4 Forecasting the Stance of Monetary Policy Under Balance Sheet Adjustments. The Macro Bulletin, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Troy Davig and A. Lee Smith. May 10, 2017. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets ," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com II. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software ##br##Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed ##br##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The breakout in the S&P 500 above 2400 in May has further stretched valuation metrics. Measures such as the Shiller P/E and price/book are elevated relative to past equity cycles. The price/sales ratio is in a steep rise too. However, our U.S. Composite valuation metric, which takes into consideration 11 different measures of value, is still a little below the one sigma level that marks significant overvaluation. This is because our composite indicator includes valuation measures that take into account the low level of interest rates. Of course, these measures will not look as favorable when rates finally rise. Technically, the U.S. equity market has upward momentum. Our Equity Monetary Indicator has remained around the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. Our Speculation Index is high, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our Composite Sentiment Index and low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. The U.S. net revisions ratio jumped higher this month, and it is bullish that the earnings surprise index advanced again. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500, although it is now so elevated that it suggests that there could be little "dry powder" left to buy the market. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking forward, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. It is disconcerting that our Europe WTP suffered a pull-back over the past month. Nonetheless, we believe that accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a strong tailwind and suggests that stocks remain in a window in which they will outperform bonds. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. We also believe that the combination of Fed balance sheet shrinkage and rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Technically, our composite indicator has touched the zero line, clearing the way for the next leg of the bond bear market. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. Technically, the dollar has shifted down this year, crossing the 200-day moving average. That said, according to our dollar technical indicator, overbought conditions have been totally worked off, suggesting that the currency is clear to move higher if Fed rate expectations shift up as we expect. Moreover, we believe that policy divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and BoJ on the other will push the dollar higher. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Geopolitical risks remain overstated in 2017, but China and Italy could scuttle the party; June elections in France and the U.K. are not market-movers; But early Italian election is a risk that could prompt the ECB to stay easy, close long EUR/USD for a gain; U.S. budget reconciliation process may be arcane, but is vital to understand upcoming tax reform process; Investors should expect details of tax reform by Q4 2017, but legislation may only pass in Q1 2018. Feature We turned the traditional adage of "sell in May and go away" on its head last month in a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!"1 So far so good (Chart 1). The fundamental reasons behind the breakout is the narrowing of the global equity risk premium on the back of easy monetary policy and a recovering global economy (Chart 2) two trends that our colleagues at the Global Alpha Sector Strategy highlighted last September.2 Since then, geopolitical risks cited as likely to end the party have been largely overstated.3 We continue to worry about Chinese financial sector reforms, U.S. politics, Sino-American tensions, signs of growing U.S. mercantilism, prospects of early Italian elections, and especially the developments in North Korea. But these remain risks for 2018, rather than 2017.4 Chart 1Blow-Off Phase Has Resumed Chart 2Global ERP Has Room To Fall There are still some "loose ends" to tie up from the first quarter, including the upcoming French legislative and U.K. general elections. On the former, there is nothing to say other than that investors should indeed prepare for a "French Revolution," by which we mean a supply-side revolution.5 Current seat projections based on the latest polling have pro-market, centrist, Europhile parties controlling between 85-92% of the National Assembly following the two-round elections in mid-June (Diagram 1).6 Diagram 1French National Assembly Seat Projection Yes. In France. Skeptical commentary will surely rain on the centrist parade by pointing out that anti-establishment presidential candidates won nearly 50% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election (true), that Marine Le Pen will be back even stronger in 2020 (false), or that the electoral system is designed to suppress the populist vote (yes, so what?). We are not as perceptive nor profound as the witty op-ed writers. Our far simpler conclusion is that the French National Assembly will elucidate the revealed preference of the French electorate, given the electoral rules that are quite familiar to all French voters. And that preference appears to be for pro-market, and quite possibly painful, structural reforms. We remain long French industrials relative to German ones, but our clients may find alternative ways to play the upcoming free-market revolution in France. On the British front, Tory PM Theresa May is facing her first genuine crisis. The impact of the Manchester terrorist attack on the election is difficult to forecast. However, May's "dementia tax" gaffe has clearly given Labour new life in the polls (Chart 3). What most commentators saw as a clear shoo-in for the Conservative Party has now become a competitive, if not exactly tight, race. Chart 3Labour Gains... Chart 4...But Tories Keep Devouring UKIP We would note that despite Labour's rise in the polls, May's strategy of suppressing the UKIP vote by campaigning from the nationalist right is paying off. As Chart 4 illustrates, UKIP voters appear to be switching to the Tories en masse: UKIP has gone from support of 20% in April 2016 to under 5% today. Given Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, May's strategy of swallowing the UKIP whole is a savvy move. It will eliminate the probability that UKIP siphons votes away from the Tories in competitive constituencies. Our own, highly conservative, estimate gives the Tories a minimum of 11 gained seats (Table 1). This is based on constituencies that voted for Brexit but where Labour and the Liberal Democrats won by less than 5% in the last election. Table 1Minimal Scenario Gives Tories 11 New Seats For Their Majority We do not think that the election will have much impact on the Brexit process. Political risks peaked in January when May announced that she planned to take the U.K. out of the EU Common Market. We pointed out at the time that this decision made it highly unlikely that the U.K. and EU negotiations would take an acrimonious turn.7 The market agreed with us, with the pound bottoming in mid-January. We continue to believe that the Brexit process will have no investment relevance for global assets. As for U.K. equities and the pound, a larger-than-expected seat grab by the Tories (375+) at the upcoming election would likely strengthen the pound further, which in turn could weigh on the FTSE 100 (with the FTSE 250 being less affected). A disappointing result, one where the Conservative Party fails to reach 350 seats, could create temporary headwinds for the pound. The one risk that remains on our horizon is faster-than-expected deleveraging in China. As we mentioned in our report last week, China's financial crackdown raises near-term risks (Chart 5).8 We do not think that policymakers are looking to enact wide scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans, bankruptcies, and defaults ahead of the Fall Party Congress. However, Chinese investors and businesses may already be looking ahead to 2018. Chart 5Policymakers Are Inducing Financial Risk... Chart 6...At A Time When Vulnerability Is Growing China's reserves-to-M2 ratio - an IMF-proposed measure that captures Chinese reserves of liquid assets against those that its residents could potentially liquefy as part of wide scale capital flight - has continued to decline (Chart 6). Measures of quarterly net portfolio flows and capital flight show that the Q4 2016 outflows accelerated sharply after a slowdown in outflows in the previous two quarters (Chart 7), although we have no information for Q1 2017. More recently, there has been a stunning surge in Bitcoin prices. The crypto-currency is up 65% since the start of May, which cannot be attributed to Euro Area fears given the victory of Europhile Emmanuel Macron in the French election. Could it be related to policy uncertainty in China? We think yes (Chart 8). China remains our pick for the risk that is most likely to scuttle our sanguine view on global risk assets in 2017. Chart 7Chinese Outflows Restarted In Q4 2016 Chart 8Chinese Uncertainty Is Bitcoin's Gain The final risk to investors that we have been tracking this year is inaction by U.S. Congress on the tax reform front. We have received many client questions regarding when investors should expect to see tax reform legislation and when (and how) it is expected to pass. We turn to this question in the rest of this report. Market Relevance Of The Budget Reconciliation Process The U.S. legislative process is complicated, arcane, and highly mutable. We have tried to spare our clients as much of the headache of U.S. congressional procedure as possible.9 However, the budget reconciliation process underpins current efforts to reform both the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and enact tax reform. To understand how, when, and whether the GOP-controlled Congress will pass these pieces of legislation, it is necessary for investors to learn the basics of the reconciliation process in particular, and the budget process more broadly. Budget reconciliation - or simply, reconciliation - simplifies the process of passing a budget and was introduced by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.10 To understand why reconciliation matters, we first have to explain how the U.S. Congress sets the budget. The U.S. Budget Process The U.S. budget process (Diagram 2) begins with the U.S. president submitting the White House budget request to Congress. This is a largely ceremonial act as Congress has the power over the appropriations process. Diagram 2U.S. Budget Process: A Tentative Timeline Congress takes into account the president's request as it formulates a budget resolution, which both houses of Congress pass but which is not presented to the president and does not actually constitute law. The resolution sets out the guidelines for the budget process, which is supposed to ultimately produce an appropriations bill. It is this bill, also referred to as a budget bill, which appropriates funding for the various federal government departments, agencies, and programs. Under a revised timetable in effect since 1987, the annual budget resolution is supposed to be adopted by both chambers of Congress by April 15, giving legislators sufficient time to then pass a budget bill by the start of the fiscal year on October 1. However, there is no obligation to do so. In fact, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution for most of President Obama's two terms in office due to a high degree of polarization between the Democrats and Republicans. As such, the government was funded via "continuing resolutions," which merely extended pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year. Reconciliation Process Where does the reconciliation process fit? It was originally introduced to simplify the process of changing the law on the books in order to bring revenue and spending levels into line with the budget resolution. The crucial feature of the process, and the reason we are focusing so much on it, is that it limits the debate in the Senate to 20 hours, thus automatically preventing any Senator from filibustering the ultimate legislation that emerges from the reconciliation process. No filibuster, no need to reach 60 Senate votes to invoke cloture, an act that ends the debate in the chamber. In the current context, where the Republican Party controls 52 seats, this means that the Republicans can use the reconciliation process to pass legislation that would otherwise be "filibustered" in the Senate. The reconciliation procedure is a very powerful legislative tool by which Congress can pass controversial legislation, as long as such legislation has an impact on government revenues or spending levels. Tax legislation, obviously, would impact government revenues. George W. Bush used the reconciliation procedure to lower taxes in 2001 and 2003. His father, George H. W. Bush used reconciliation to raise taxes in 1990 (and thus roll back some of the Ronald Reagan 1986 tax reform). The 1996 welfare reform - the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - was also passed via the reconciliation process. Obamacare was not passed via the reconciliation procedure. The main portion of the bill - including almost all of its key provisions - was passed at the beginning of the 111th Congress in 2009 when the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate following the momentous 2008 election.11 It was the subsequent amendments to the original bill that required the reconciliation process due to the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, particularly several crucial funding provisions. The one unifying feature of all reconciliation bills is that they must have an impact on the budget, essentially by changing the revenue or spending levels of the federal government. If the bill introduces extraneous provisions that deviate from the budgetary requirement, then these can be struck out by invoking the so-called "Byrd rule." Waiving the Byrd rule requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate, which is 60 votes. As such, it essentially requires the 60-seat majority needed to also invoke cloture, making the entire reconciliation process redundant. Bottom Line: The budget reconciliation process allows U.S. Congress to pass legislation without the a 60-seat Senate majority. However, procedural rules require the provisions of a reconciliation bill to deal exclusively with legislation that impact government revenue or spending levels. Timing Since the introduction of the procedure in 1974, there have been 24 reconciliation bills, three of which were vetoed by the president. The reconciliation process begins with the passing of the budget resolution, which sets out the "reconciliation instructions." However, since the procedure was introduced, it has rarely progressed along the intended timeline. The very first reconciliation act in 1980 was introduced in a budget resolution that passed well after the April 15 deadline, in mid-June. And the ultimate appropriations bill, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, was only signed into law in early December 1980, so essentially two months after the start of FY1981 on October 1. Investors should therefore understand that the U.S. budget process has no real firm deadlines. The schedule is highly malleable. A reconciliation bill also does not have to be passed with the actual budget. Despite being initiated by the budget resolution, reconciliation runs parallel to the budget process. For example, Congress has already set appropriations for FY2017, but the reconciliation bill on Obamacare - set by the FY2017 budget resolution - is still in negotiations. Diagram 3 illustrates that half of all reconciliation bills were passed after the start of the fiscal year for which they were introduced in a budget resolution. And five reconciliation bills were passed in the calendar year of the fiscal year for which they were supposed to reconcile the budget, basically mid way through the fiscal year. Diagram 3Timing Of Reconciliation Procedures This is important in the current context because investors are waiting for tax reform legislation which is supposed to be passed via the budget reconciliation process for FY2018. However, the GOP-controlled Congress has not even finished the budget process for FY2017. In fact, the budget resolution for FY2017 only passed the House on January 13, 2017. As we learned above, U.S. budget process guidelines call for the budget resolution to have been passed by April 15, 2016. As such, the Obamacare repeal and replace bill, if it were to ultimately pass the Senate, would certainly be the most delayed reconciliation bill ever. In fact, we could see the current Congress passing the FY2017 reconciliation bill in the waning days of FY2017! Congressional rules only allow one budget resolution to be active at any one time. In fact, as soon as a new budget resolution is passed, the old reconciliation instructions are made void. As such, investors have to wait for the Republicans to decide what they plan to do with the Obamacare reconciliation bill before they begin contemplating tax reform. Bottom Line: Republicans in Congress decided to issue reconciliation instructions as part of the FY2017 budget resolution, which passed in January. As such, investors have to wait until that process ends - with either Obamacare repeal or failure of the bill - before Congress can produce a FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for tax reform. We suspect that the FY2018 budget resolution will be passed sometime between the end of the August Congressional recess, on September 5, and December. But that is just a guess (Diagram 4). It could happen earlier, in July, if Obamacare is dealt with over the next month. Diagram 4Tentative U.S. Political Timeline Reconciliation Rules And Tax Reform Changing America's complex tax laws is precisely the sort of legislative action that reconciliation was designed to facilitate. That said, investors are still not sure whether the Trump administration and Congress will be able to agree on comprehensive tax reform that includes lowering top rates for corporations, or whether they will merely agree to cut household taxes on households. Some clarity will emerge once the Republican-controlled Congress passes the FY2018 budget resolution, which will contain reconciliation instructions for either comprehensive tax reform (most likely) or merely household tax reform (unlikely). At that point, the length of the reconciliation process will depend on how much agreement there is surrounding tax reform. Diagram 3 shows that tax cuts - such as those in 2001 and 2003 - take relatively little time to pass. Tax reform, on the other hand, could take a while longer given multiple competing interests. If comprehensive, we would expect tax reform to be passed by the end of Q1 2018. Would that mean that tax cuts would only be effective from January 1, 2018? Or, even less bullish, from the start of FY2019? No. The GOP would have the option of making tax cuts retroactive and thus can avoid a huge market disappointment if tax cuts come later in the next year. It is even legally possible for tax laws passed in 2018 to take effect on January 1, 2017 - though it is admittedly more of a stretch than doing it this year.12 Can reconciliation be used to pass budget-busting tax reform, as we have argued investors should expect? You bet! From 1980 to the 1990s the reconciliation procedure was primarily used - and in fact designed - to reduce the deficit through reductions in mandatory spending, revenue increases, or both. It has since become a tool to expand deficits. This was most famously done by the Bush era reconciliation bills in 2001 and 2003, which introduced large tax cuts. The aforementioned Byrd rule forces any provision of a bill that increases the deficit beyond the years covered by the reconciliation bill to "sunset." In the case of the 2001 and 2003 bills, this meant that Bush-era tax cuts expired in 2011 (estate tax) and 2013 (which investors will remember as the "fiscal cliff"). The sunset period does not have to be ten years, it could conceivably be a lot longer, in effect making tax reform permanent, as far as most investors' time horizons are concerned. Following the Democratic Party sweep in the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrat-controlled Senate changed reconciliation rules to prohibit any deficit-increasing measures, regardless of the sunset clause loophole. However, the Republicans changed the rules back in 2015, after they re-took the Senate in the 2014 midterm election. This is crucial for two reasons: first, it means that the current procedural rules on the books allow deficits to be blown out via the reconciliation procedure and second, it establishes that the current cohort of Republicans in Congress is fiscally profligate, despite media punditry to the contrary. Bottom Line: The reconciliation process was designed to facilitate precisely the type of legislation that Republicans will try to pass via tax reform. According to the current procedural rules, such legislation can increase the budget deficit, as long as it sunsets at the conclusion of the budgetary period set out by the legislation (normally 10-years, but it could be longer). We suspect that tax reform will take until Q1 2018 to pass, but Republicans will be able to make its effects retroactive to January 1, 2017. The Big Picture - What Does It All Mean For Fiscal Policy? We expect the Republican-held Congress to attempt to pass comprehensive tax reform over the next four quarters. If the GOP fail to agree on "revenue offsets" for corporate tax cuts, we could see the Republican Congress electing to pass simple tax cuts for households, as the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did. To facilitate such legislation politically, the Republicans will rely on "dynamic scoring," the macroeconomic modeling tool based on the work of economist Arthur Laffer (of the "Laffer curve" fame). The idea is that the headline government revenue lost through tax cuts fails to take into account the growth-generating consequences ("macroeconomic feedback") of the cuts, factors that actually add to revenues. In other words, "tax cuts pay for themselves." It is true that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will balk at dynamic scoring. But we doubt that "egghead, socialist economists" will stand in the way of tax reforms. As we discussed above, the CBO's score will ultimately only force the Republicans to "sunset" tax reform legislation, not scuttle it. The market disagrees with us. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Market Has Voted: No Fiscal Stimulus We think the market is making a serious mistake by taking the Republican mantra of "revenue neutral" - meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures - tax reform seriously. This is easier said than done. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - will all face resistance from vested interests. We suspect that the GOP will produce some revenue offsets, but not enough to have a revenue-neutral tax reform. The path of least resistance, therefore, will be to bust the budget and then force the measures to expire over the life of the budget-setting window. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney has already floated the idea of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. This would allow tax reform measures, even if they are characterized by the CBO as profligate, to expire in two decades. That's practically a lifetime away, as far as any investor is concerned. What is the investment significance of a stimulative tax reform package? Our colleague Peter Berezin has recently pointed out that it is ironic that fiscal stimulus is coming to America only when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year, as the Fed responds to greater fiscal thrust with tighter monetary policy.13 We encourage our clients to read BCA Special Report "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," penned by Martin Barnes in March, which details the likely path that assets and the economy will take over the next two years.14 In the short term, the market will continue to fret that tax reform is doomed and that Republicans are committed to austerity. However, budget-busting tax reform could begin to be priced in by the market well before the reconciliation bill is ultimately passed. We suspect that the outlines of tax reform will emerge this summer. The market may realize that stimulus is coming as soon as the FY2018 budget resolution, containing tax reform instructions, is passed in Q3 or Q4 2017. Such a realization later this year could augur a violent snap-back in the USD. Currently, the two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 58 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 10). We have been long EUR/USD since March 22,15 in expectations that investors would be busy covering their euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections, the outcome of which we have had a high conviction on since November.16 However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will ultimately subside (Chart 11). Chart 10Widening Real Rate ##br##Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 11Speculators Are Long The Euro##br## For The First Time In Three Years We are therefore closing our USD short versus both the euro and the pound, for gains of 3.48% and 3.34% respectively. As we expected, the ECB is going to look to guide investors towards a "dovish" tapering of its QE program. Speaking before the European Parliament's committee on economic affairs, ECB President Mario Draghi confirmed that "very accommodative financing conditions" reliant on "a fairly substantial amount of monetary accommodation" would continue. The ECB will have to make a decision whether to extend its sovereign bond purchase program into the next year or start winding it down as planned. Given news flow out of Italy that an election may be planned as early as September, the ECB may be forced to stand pat until after the end of the year. Given our view that tax reform in the U.S. would ultimately happen, and that it would eventually be marginally stimulative, any resurfacing of political risks in Europe - which we are expecting - should be negative for the EUR/USD. What should investors do about European equities? We are cautious. As we have been pointing out to our clients since September of last year, Italy is the political risk in Europe.17 However, we think that most investors are willing to bet that European equities can survive Italian political turbulence. This could be a mistake in the short term, as we think that Euroskeptic (albeit evolving) Five Star Movement could win a plurality in the next election. In the long term, Italy will become ECB's proverbial boulder, that Draghi must push up a hill like Sisyphus, only to see it roll down to the bottom with each bout of Italian political instability. As such, Italy's instability will force ECB to set its monetary policy for the weakest link in the Euro Area (Italy), rather than the aggregate. This should be positive for Euro Area risk assets, but negative for the euro, all other things being equal. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Strike While The Iron Is Hot," dated September 2, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 The dates for the two rounds of the legislative elections are June 11 and 18. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 We draw on several overviews of the budget reconciliation process in this report. Please see David Reich and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Introduction To Budget 'Reconciliation'," dated November 9, 2016, available at cbpp.org; Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing Of Legislative Action," dated February 23, 2016, available at fas.org; and Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2010," dated January 4, 2017, available at fas.org. 11 To reach the required 60 seat filibuster-proof majority the Democrats relied on some luck and cunning. Democrat Al Franken unseated Republican Incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount in Minnesota and Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, switched his party affiliation to Democrat. 12 Congress, after the sweeping 1986 tax reforms, corrected certain oversights in that law by passing subsequent measures in 1987. These were made to be retroactive back to the previous calendar year, i.e. January 1, 1986, and the courts upheld the legislation. Hence, there is precedent for Republicans to pass tax reform in 2018 that takes effect January 1, 2017, though admittedly the circumstances would matter. Courts have even upheld retroactive tax legislation back to two calendar tax years. Please see Erika K. Lunder, Robert Meltz, and Kenneth R. Thomas, "Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation," Congressional Research Service, October 25, 2012, available at fas.org. 13 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight," dated May 26, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The equity risk premium (ERP) is distorted: too low. The Eurostoxx600 uptrend is reaching a technical limit according to its 130-day (6-month) fractal dimension. The U.S.-Euro area bond yield spread is distorted: too high. The Spain-France bond yield spread is distorted: too high. The Italy-Germany bond yield spread is not distorted. Feature Central banks' massive interventions in markets have left many investors wondering: has the market's price discovery mechanism become dysfunctional - and if so, where most severely? It is a good question because clearly, the prices that are most distorted are also the ones most likely to dislocate, and generate lucrative opportunities. This week's report assesses the distortion in three important relative pricings: the Italy-Germany sovereign yield spread; the U.S.-euro area sovereign yield spread; and the prospective excess return from equities over bonds, otherwise known as the equity risk premium. The Italy-Germany Bond Yield Spread Is Not Distorted We often hear the claim that the ECB's bond purchase program has compressed periphery bond yields relative to core yields. But we find no evidence for such a distortion. For example, relative to the ECB's capital key1 and other guidelines for bond purchase volumes, there is a larger ongoing supply of Italian BTPs than German bunds.2 So from a technical perspective, the ECB's interventions should have depressed German bund yields more than Italian BTP yields, thereby expanding the spread. Chart Of The WeekLow Volatility: We've Been Here Before... And It Didn't Last In fact, the technical distortion seems quite small because the Italy-Germany yield spread can be fully justified by its two underlying fundamentals: relative competitiveness (Chart I-2) and euro breakup probability (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Euro Area Yield Spreads Depend On Relative Competitiveness ... Chart I-3... And The Probability Of Euro Break-Up The premium on Italian BTP yields exists as a compensation for the expected redenomination loss in the tail-event of euro breakup. Assuming this currency depreciation would neutralize Italy's current 25% under-competitiveness versus Germany, we can infer that the 125 bps yield premium on 5-year BTPs is pricing a 5% annual probability of euro breakup (because 125 bps = 25% loss times 5% probability). The probability should account for an Italian election that is due within the next year, and Italian public support for the euro hovering at an unconvincing majority of around 55%. In this context, the probability should be somewhat elevated, though not alarming. So a 5% annual probability of euro breakup through the next five years seems reasonable within its post-crisis 2%-20% range. On this basis, the Italian-Germany yield spread is not distorted (Chart I-4). Instead, the real anomaly is the Spain-France (5-year) yield spread which stands at 50 bps (Chart I-5). There is now no difference in competitiveness between Spain and France, so there should be no redenomination premium on Spanish Bonos over French OATs, irrespective of the probability of euro break up. Stay structurally overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-4The Italy-Germany Yield Spread At 150 Bps Is Fair Chart I-5The Spain-France Yield Spread At 50 Bps Is Too High The U.S.-Euro Area Bond Yield Spread Is Distorted: Too High If bond price discovery were based solely on economic fundamentals, the U.S.-euro area yield spread would not be at a multi-decade extreme today. Such an extreme spread exists because the difference between Fed and ECB policy is much more polarized than is justified by the economic fundamentals. In this sense, the relative pricing is distorted. Consider the hard data. The percentages of the working age population in employment are at the same respective pre-crisis highs in both economies; the difference in wage inflation is closing; and the gap between core inflation in the U.S. and euro area has narrowed very sharply to just 0.6%. Indeed, excluding the cost of shelter - which is not represented in the euro area CPI - core inflation in the U.S. is now lower than in the euro area. Agreed, Fed policy should be tighter than ECB policy. But the expected difference should not be at a multi-decade extreme. Given the self-proclaimed 'data-dependency' of both the Fed and the ECB, the polarization of monetary policy expectations (Chart I-6) has to converge to the rapidly narrowing gap in the hard economic data, one way or another (Chart I-7). Chart I-6The U.S.-Euro Area Yield ##br##Spread Is Too High ... Chart I-7... And Will Gravitate To The Narrowing ##br##Gap In The Economic Data I conclude that: the U.S.-euro area (and U.S.-Germany) yield spread can close much further; euro/dollar can rise structurally; and the market neutral equity pair-trade long euro area Financials/short U.S. Financials can continue to outperform. The caveat is that these positions are just one big correlated trade (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Expected Monetary Policy Difference ##br##Is Driving The U.S.-Germany Yield Spread ... Chart I-9... And Therefore The Relative ##br##Performance Of Financials The Equity Risk Premium Is Distorted: Too Low Equity market behaviour is starkly asymmetric; market ascents tend to be gentle and drawn out, while descents tend to be violent and abrupt. By contrast, bond market behaviour is more symmetric; both upward and downward moves can be gentle or violent. The upshot is that when the equity market is ascending, its observed volatility declines. And the longer and more established the ascent becomes, the lower the observed volatility goes, both in absolute terms and relative to bonds. Crucially, this is just an observation of the inherent behaviour of equities: a low observed volatility simply tells us that equity ascents are gentle and drawn out (Chart I-10); it does not tell us that equity risk has diminished. Chart I-10Low Volatility Just Tells Us That Equity Ascents Are Gentle And Drawn Out. ##br##It Does Not Tell Us That Equity Risk Has Diminished! Unfortunately, the decline in the observed volatility may create the illusion that equity risk has diminished. In response, investors might demand a smaller (or no) equity risk premium (ERP) - the excess prospective long-term return over bonds - because they have falsely concluded that the risk of a large intermediate loss is vanishing. In turn, the shrinking ERP and lower required return justifies an even higher price today, allowing the market to continue its gentle ascent. So observed volatility falls even further, and the process feeds on itself in a self-reinforcing spiral. Readers might recognise this as the setup of the Minsky hypothesis in which the illusion of systemic stability breeds systemic instability and an eventual tipping point - a so-called 'Minsky Moment'. The Minsky hypothesis is an explanation for the boom bust cycle in the economy. It proposes that a credit boom initially generates strong and steady growth with low observed volatility. But the associated hubris - "no more boom and bust" - eventually encourages reckless lending and thereby sows the seeds of its destruction. When the misallocated loans cannot be repaid, the inevitable nemesis arrives. Likewise, in the case of the equity market, today's low observed volatility is absolutely not a reason for hubris. Yet as demonstrated in Markets Suspended In Disbelief,3 the low observed volatility has seduced investors into accepting a wafer-thin ERP. Today's low observed volatility is at the lower end of a range that has existed for at least 50 years (Chart of the Week). We have been here many times before. In each case, the low observed volatility did not last. And when it rose, so too did the ERP. As supporting evidence, observe that the 130-day (6-month) fractal dimension of the Eurostoxx600 is suggesting that the current uptrend is reaching its technical limit (Chart I-11). As a reminder, when an investment's fractal dimension approaches its natural lower bound, it signals that excessive trend following and groupthink have reached a natural point of instability. At which point the established trend is likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. Chart I-11The Current Uptrend In The Eurostoxx600 ##br##Is Reaching Its Technical Limit Before making a large absolute commitment to the equity asset class on a 6-12 month or longer horizon, I would first like to see both of these trustworthy signals stop flashing red. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The capital key refers to the proportion of the ECB's capital owned by each of the euro area member states, and it is broadly pro-rata to the member state's GDP. 2 German GDP is 2 times the size of Italian GDP, but the stock of German sovereign debt is only 1.1 times the size of Italian sovereign debt. 3 Published on April 13 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The 65-day fractal dimension of nickel versus tin is approaching a level which has previously signaled an imminent trend-reversal. Go long nickel/short tin as this week's trade. Chart I-12 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights U.S. Politics: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Duration Checklists: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Europe: Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Feature The Economy Trumps Politics Chart of the WeekHas Anything Really Changed? A whiff of panic swept across global financial markets last week, as the political risk bugaboo came back with a vengeance. In the U.S., the deepening morass surrounding President Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director Comey, and the potential links to the ongoing investigation of the White House's ties to Russia, raised concerns that Trump's ambitious pro-growth policy agenda would never make it out of Congress. Even this year's darling in the Emerging Markets, Brazil, suffered a huge financial rout after news broke of corruption allegations against the current president. Amid growing talk of a potential impeachment of Trump, the market action was a classic risk-off move, with equity markets falling, the VIX finally waking from its slumber and safe-haven assets like gold, U.S. Treasuries and the Japanese yen rallying. The euro climbed to new 2017 highs versus the U.S. dollar, without any changes in expectations about potential policy moves from the European Central Bank (ECB), as the market knocked down the probability of a June Fed rate hike (Chart of the Week). Some creative commentators called these market moves "the Trump fade" - the beginnings of a reversal of the so-called "Trump trade" that has sent U.S. equity prices and bond yields higher since the U.S. election on expectations of a large U.S. fiscal stimulus. We remain skeptical, however, that expectations of tax cuts and increased government spending have been the main drivers of the post-election boost in U.S. stock prices and Treasury yields, as the current cyclical upturn in global growth was already underway before Trump's election victory. Our colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy service note that, despite Trump's terrible overall approval ratings (Chart 2), his support among his Republican voters remains strong (Chart 3). Thus, an impeachment is only likely if the Republicans were to lose control of the House of Representatives in next year's U.S. midterm elections. Fear of that outcome should motivate the GOP to try and push through tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the 2018 midterms, in order to present a positive economic message to voters.1 Unless the evidence against Trump becomes so damning that even the Republicans in Congress have to focus on impeachment instead of policy, investors should ride out any market volatility associated with worries that the Trump economic agenda is at risk. Chart 2Trump's Support Abysmal Chart 3GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Even without a boost to growth from D.C., however, we continue to expect the U.S. economy to grow above 2.5% in 2017. This above-trend pace will keep the Fed in play for at least two additional rate hikes before year-end, as it would give policymakers confidence that U.S. inflation expectations would return back the Fed's 2% target. In addition, as we discuss in the next section, the cyclical upturn in the Euro Area economy is showing no signs of cooling off, which will put more pressure on the ECB to begin preparing the markets for an eventual tapering of its asset purchases. The recent decline in bond yields is unlikely to persist much longer. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Checking In On Our Duration Checklists In a Special Report published back in February, we introduced a list of indicators to follow to assess the likely direction of U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields.2 We called these our "Duration Checklists", incorporating data on economic growth, inflation, investor risk aversion and market technicals to judge whether our bias to maintain a below-benchmark duration stance should be maintained. This week, we provide an update on those Checklists. The current message from the Checklists is that there is reduced upward pressure on bond yields from the overall strength of the global economy than existed four months ago. Domestic forces, however, are still pointing to higher yields in the U.S. and, especially, the Euro Area (Table 1). Specifically: Table 1A More Bond-Bearish Backdrop For Bunds Than USTs Global economic activity indicators have lost some momentum. While the global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still rising, our global LEI diffusion index has fallen sharply and is now below the 50 line, indicating that a more countries now have a falling LEI. In addition, the global ZEW index has drifted a touch lower, global data surprises are no longer positive, and the global credit impulse has ticked downward (Chart 4). Only the rising LEI warrants a "check" in our Checklists (i.e. justifies our current below-benchmark duration stance). U.S. & European domestic economic activity remains in good shape. Consumer and business confidence remains at strong levels on either side of the Atlantic, with corporate profit growth still accelerating (Charts 5 & 6). Only the modest decline in the U.S. manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI) is worthy of an "x" in our U.S. Checklist, although the index remains well above 50 and is not pointing to a more serious deterioration in the U.S. economy. Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Has##BR##Turned Less Bond-Bearish Chart 5U.S. Economic Strength##BR##Still Supports Higher UST Yields Chart 6Euro Area Growth Is##BR##Gaining Upward Momentum Inflation pressures have eased a bit, especially in the U.S. The slowing momentum in global energy prices has taken some of the steam out of headline inflation in both the U.S. and Europe. Wage inflation has eased up a bit in the U.S., even with the labor market running at full employment (Chart 7). Wage growth and core inflation have recently ticked higher in the Euro Area, however, while the unemployment rate there has fallen to within less than a percentage point away from the OECD estimate of the NAIRU (Chart 8).3 The only indicators worthy of a "check" are the unemployment gap in both the U.S. and Euro Area, although we will give a potential "check" (with a question mark) to European wage inflation. If the recent uptick gains additional momentum, the case for the ECB to begin moving to a less accommodative policy stance will be much stronger. Chart 7Inflation Pressures On UST Yields Have Eased Chart 8Core Inflation & Wages Bottoming Out In Europe? There is still a pro-risk bias among global investors. U.S. and Euro Area equity markets are still in bullish trends, trading well above their 200-day moving averages. At the same time, corporate credit spreads remain tight and option-implied equity volatility is very low (even after last week's pop in the U.S. on the Trump drama). All indicators are worthy of a "check", suggesting that easier financial conditions can lead to higher bond yields (Charts 9 & 10). We are, however, giving an "x" to the European Checklist for the deviation of the Stoxx 600 from its moving average, as it is now at the +10% extreme that we defined as being potentially bond-bullish as it could foreshadow a near-term correction of an overheated stock market. Chart 9Still Generally A Risk-Seeking Backdrop In The U.S. Chart 10Strong Risk-Seeking Behavior In Europe Bond markets no longer look technically stretched. The sharp move higher in yields at the end of 2016 left all our indicators of yield momentum at bearish extremes (for bond prices). With bond yields pulling back from 2017 highs, however, the momentum measures all look neutral at the moment and are not an impediment to higher yields (Charts 11 & 12). The same goes for duration positioning in the U.S., with the net longs on 10-year Treasury futures now at the highest level since 2007. All of the technical indicators in our Checklists warrant an "check". Chart 11UST Technicals No##BR##Longer Stretched Chart 12Technicals Are No Impediment##BR##To Higher Yields In Europe Summing it all up, our Duration Checklists show that the majority of indicators are still pointing to higher bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, although not as decisively as when we first published the Checklists in February. There are more "check" on the European side of the ledger, however, suggesting that there is more room for European government bond yields to rise relative to U.S. Treasuries. This would indicate a potential trade opportunity to cut allocations to Europe and raise allocations to the U.S. Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Is Now Too Low The recent decline in U.S. yields, however, has narrowed the U.S. Treasury/German Bund spread to levels that make putting on a tightening trade unattractive on a tactical basis. (Chart 13). The gap between the data surprise indices in the U.S. and Euro Area already reflects the recent soft patch for the U.S. economy (middle panel). That spread in the surprise indices now at historically wide levels, suggesting more potential for Treasury yields to rise if the U.S. data begins to rebound soon, as we expect. Also, the gap between U.S. and Euro Area inflation expectations has narrowed alongside the recent downtick in U.S. core inflation (bottom panel), although we expect the decline in U.S. core inflation to be short-lived given the persistent tightness of the U.S. labor market. Net-net, we would prefer to see a wider Treasury-Bund spread before making switching our country exposure out of Europe and into the U.S. We can, however, listen to the message from our Checklists and reduce our duration exposure in Europe. Specifically, we are cutting our allocations to the longer maturity buckets (5 years out to 30 years) by 50% in our model portfolio for Germany, France and Italy, putting the proceeds into the 1-3 year buckets (see the table on Page 12). This will reduce our overall recommended portfolio duration by just over 1/10th of a year, as well as put an additional bear-steepening curve tilt within our European government allocations. We are comfortable with that bias, given the growing risk that the ECB will soon begin signaling a tapering of asset purchases once the current program expires at the end of the year. Bottom Line: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment", dated May 17 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Four separate indicators provide compelling evidence for a 'mini-cycle' in activity. 1. The bond yield. 2. The credit impulse. 3. The steel equity sector price. 4. The consumer price index (CPI). Right now, the mini-cycle is about 4 months into downswing whose average duration tends to be about 8 months. Hence, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations. Feature Central to our European investment philosophy is the existence of what we call a 'mini-cycle' in global activity. Right now, this cycle is about 4 months into a mini-downswing whose average duration tends to be about 8 months. Within this global mini-cycle the irony is that Europe itself has been a paragon of stability. Quarter on quarter growth has remained within a remarkably narrow 1.2-2.2%1 band for eight consecutive quarters. And the dispersion of growth across euro area countries now stands at a historical minimum. We expect the euro area's relative stability to persist given the recent bottoming of the euro area 6-month bank credit impulse. Nevertheless, for the European investment and inflation outlook, the global growth cycle is as important, or more important, than the domestic cycle. In highly integrated and correlated international markets, the absolute direction of European asset prices takes its cue from a global rather than a local conductor. The pace of consumer price inflation also tends to be a global rather than a local phenomenon. For example, through the past 10 years, the inflation cycles in the euro area, U.K. and U.S. have been near identical (Chart I-2). Chart Of the WeekThe Steel Sector Has A Clear Mini-Cycle Chart I-2The Inflation Cycle Is Global, Not Local In this light, the ECB now correctly assesses that "the risks surrounding the euro area outlook relate predominantly to global factors." As we go on to show below, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations. This would slow the ECB's exit from its current ultra-accommodative monetary policy. But because these downside inflation surprises were coming from outside the euro area, it would force other central banks to become even more dovish relative to current expectations. On this basis, we are very comfortable to maintain our relative return positions in European investments: expect euro currency outperformance; T-bond/German bund yield spread convergence; and euro area Financials outperformance versus global Financials. For absolute return positions, expect the relatively benign backdrop for bonds to continue into the summer months. Mini-Cycles: The Evidence Mounts In previous reports, we presented two pieces of evidence for economic mini-cycles. First, the global bond yield shows a remarkably regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle averaging about 8 months (Chart I-3). Second, the acceleration and deceleration of bank credit flows - as measured in the credit impulse - also exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle also lasting about 8 months (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Bond Yield Has A Clear Mini-Cycle Chart I-4The Credit Impulse Has A Clear Mini-Cycle We proposed that the bond yield and credit impulse cycles are inextricably embraced in a perpetual feedback loop: a higher bond yield weighs on credit flows; this slows economic growth which then shows up in activity data; in response, the bond market lowers the bond yield; the lower bond yield boosts credit flows, which lift economic growth; and so on... But as each stage in the sequence comes with a delay, the bond yield and credit impulse mini-cycles should be 'out of phase'. And this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Bond Yield And Credit Impulse Mini-Cycles Are Out Of Phase Now, to build an even stronger case for mini-cycles we will add a third and fourth piece of compelling evidence. The third piece of evidence is the steel equity sector price, which is an excellent real-time indicator of the growth cycle, and shows exactly the same mini-cycle profile as the bond yield (Chart of the Week). The fourth piece of evidence is the consumer price index (CPI) which also presents an identical mini-cycle profile (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Consumer Price Index Has A Clear Mini-Cycle As with the bond yield and the steel equity sector price, we have de-trended the CPI to better show the underlying cyclicality. But in the case of the CPI, our chosen de-trending rate of 2% has special significance: 2% is the inflation target for most central banks. Hence, if the de-trended CPI is rising, inflation is running above the 2% target; if the de-trended CPI is falling, inflation is running below the 2% target. In this regard, the mini-cycle in the CPI carries a disturbing asymmetry. Observe that in recent mini-upswings, inflation has just about reached the 2% target. But in each and every mini-downswing, inflation has substantially undershot the 2% target. Based on the regularity of the mini-cycle through the past 10 years, we can estimate that we are about half way into a mini-downswing. If so, the surprise in the coming months could be that inflation comes in below expectations, frustrating the ECB. Still, as the disinflationary surprises will emanate from outside the euro area, other major central banks might be even more frustrated. And this supports our aforementioned relative positions in European investments. What Is Your Most Provocative Non-Consensus View? The observation that inflation has struggled to reach 2% in mini-upswings, but substantially undershot 2% in each and every mini-downswing is very telling. The strong suggestion is that the recent modest uplift in inflation towards 2% could just be a mini-cyclical rather than structural phenomenon. The death of debt super-cycles combined with an incipient wave of Artificial Intelligence (AI) led automation still constitutes a very powerful structural deflationary force, which should not be underestimated. The technical pattern of bond yields also supports this thesis. Chartists will point out that the global bond yield is still in a well-defined pattern of lower highs and lower lows - which is to say a well-established downward channel (Chart I-7). And that it would take the yield to rise by a quarter (about 40 bps) to breach this channel. The German 30-year bund yield gives a very similar message (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Still In A Structural Downtrend: The Global Bond Yield... Chart I-8...And The German 30-Year Bund Yield At meetings, clients often ask for the most non-consensus investment view - something to which the street attributes a 10% chance, but to which I attribute a 50% or higher chance. Given the asymmetrical mini-cycle behaviour of both inflation and bond yields and the powerful structural forces of deflation shown in the preceding charts, here is my provocative answer: Perhaps the structural low in bond yields is not behind us; perhaps it is to come in the next major global downturn. But this is a personal view. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 At an annualized rate. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week, leaving us with four open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Fractal Trading Model * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Duration: The opposing forces currently pulling on global bonds - softer growth and core inflation readings vs. tightening labor markets - are keeping yields locked into narrow trading ranges. We expect the strength of the global upturn to reassert itself, leading to higher government bond yields and corporate credit outperformance over the balance of 2017. U.K./Canada/Australia: Economic data, as well as our bond market indicators, are giving conflicting signals for the outlook for yields in the U.K., Canada & Australia. Our analysis of the relative growth and inflation dynamics in the three countries leads us to recommend a 2-year/30-year yield curve box trade, positioning for a relatively flatter curve in Canada and a relatively steeper curve in the U.K. Portugal Trade Update: Improving growth indicators, and declining measures of banking sector risk, in Portugal have resulted in a sharp narrowing of government spreads versus Germany. We are exiting our short 10-year Portugal/long 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade this week, at a loss of -1.6%. Feature Chart of the WeekMarket Volatility Is Low For A Good Reason What was once a fairly straightforward narrative for global bond markets earlier this year is now being challenged. Growth data has cooled a bit in the U.S. and China, while commodity prices have fallen, suggesting that the global economy may be losing steam even with leading indicators still rising and the European economy looking robust. At the same time, core inflation measures have ticked lower despite the signs of tighter labor markets throughout the developed world. These moves on the margin have stalled the upturn in global bond yields, resulting in lower fixed income market volatility that is likely playing a role in keeping realized equity market volatility at depressed levels (Chart of the Week). We continue to see the recent pullback in U.S. data as being temporary in nature. The economy should improve in the coming months given the still-solid trends in U.S. corporate profits and household income and the still-low level of interest rates. The signs of a building China slowdown are potentially more worrisome, especially on the inflation front given how much Chinese demand has boosted commodities and overall traded goods prices over the past year. Although we are not expecting a major Chinese downturn that could spill over more broadly to the world economy, it is likely that the next leg up in inflation in the developed economies will come from diminished spare capacity and rising core inflation, rather than a commodity-driven reacceleration of headline inflation. We continue to recommend a strategic underweight overall portfolio duration stance, as we expect the Fed to deliver on its planned rate hikes before year-end and the European Central Bank (ECB) to soon begin signaling a tapering of its asset purchases next year. We continue to favor corporate credit over sovereign debt, particularly in the U.S., given the strength of the current global upturn, but staying up in credit quality (i.e. focusing on Investment Grade and higher-rated credit tiers in High-Yield). Stuck On Neutral: Considering Trades Between Canada, Australia & The U.K. Over the past few months, we have upgraded our stance on government bond exposure in the U.K., Canada and Australia - all to neutral and all for essentially the same reason. There was not a compelling enough case to expect any of the central banks in those countries to move interest rates before year-end, in either direction, given the lack of sustainable inflation pressures and mixed messages on growth. With policymakers stuck on hold for the foreseeable future, keeping our recommended bond weightings at benchmark was the logical (albeit unexciting) choice. Even the mixed messages sent by our own bond indicators highlight the difficulty in making a decisive market call at the moment. Our Central Bank Monitors for Canada and Australia have recently flipped into the "tighter policy required" zone, joining the U.K. Monitor which has been there for some time (Chart 2).1 This would suggest moving to an underweight stance in anticipation of tighter monetary policy in those countries that is currently not priced into money market curves (bottom panel). Yet the best performing bond market of the three over the past two years has been the U.K. - a trend that started before last year's Brexit vote when the U.K. economy was in relatively good shape and the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to send hawkish messages. Gilts now look the most overvalued judging by the current negative real yields on offer (Chart 3), yet our U.K. Central Bank Monitor is showing signs of topping out, further adding to the confusion. Chart 2Markets Don't Expect Anything From BoE/BoC/RBA Chart 3Gilts Look Most Expensive Having mixed directional signals, however, does not imply that there are not trade opportunities within these markets. Even if the BoE, the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) are not in a hurry to begin hiking interest rates, domestic growth and inflation pressures are building at a different pace within these economies, creating potential cross-market trade opportunities. Economic Growth: Canada has the strongest leading economic indicator, manufacturing PMI and consumer sentiment, but the softest business confidence (Chart 4) - perhaps because of concerns over the future protectionist trade policies of U.S. President Donald Trump. In the U.K., a combination of falling real wage growth and persistently high levels of political uncertainty after Brexit are weighing on consumer sentiment, yet business confidence is the strongest of the three countries. Meanwhile, overall confidence in Australia is the weakest, even with manufacturing in a strong upturn. Most worryingly, real consumer spending is slowing rapidly in all three countries, although it is holding up relatively better in Canada. Inflation: The differences in price pressures are less pronounced (Chart 5). Inflation rates are similar among the three economies as Australian core CPI inflation appears to have finally bottomed out in the first quarter of this year after falling steadily since 2014. All three countries are witnessing decelerating wage growth, however, even with solid job growth in Canada over the past year. Spare capacity measures like the output gap and unemployment gap show the U.K. economy being closest to full employment (Chart 6). Spare capacity is steadily being absorbed in Canada, although the BoC attributes this to a slower pace of potential GDP growth, according to last month's BoC Monetary Policy Report (MPR).2 Chart 4Canadian Economic Data Looks Strongest Chart 5No Major Inflation Differences Home Prices & Debt: The housing markets remain an issue in Canada and Australia, where home prices look severely overvalued with household debt at elevated levels (Chart 7). The governments in both countries are trying to use regulatory and macro-prudential solutions to cool red-hot housing demand, but rapid growth in housing wealth remains a source of stimulus for consumers at the moment. The situation is different in the U.K., where home valuations and debt levels are nowhere near as elevated as in the other two countries (although London homeowners may disagree). Chart 6No Spare Capacity In The U.K. Chart 7Household Debt A Concern In Canada & Australia Exports: Each country is also exposed to a different major economy via the export channel. The OECD leading economic indicators for the U.S., Euro Area and China (the largest export markets for Canada, the U.K. and Australia, respectively) are all ticking higher, suggesting that export demand should pick up for Canada, the U.K. and Australia in the near term (Chart 8). However, Australian exports to China have already expanded at a 60% annual rate and our Emerging Market and China strategists are expecting some cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of this year; slower export growth should be expected. Chart 8An Unsustainable Surge In Aussie##BR##Export Demand From China After adding up all the pieces, it is still difficult to select one government bond market over the others in absolute terms. The U.K. would appear to have the least bond-friendly backdrop, with higher inflation and very low real interest rates. Yet the BoE is worried about many factors - Brexit uncertainties on trade and business confidence, declining real household income growth - that should prevent them from shifting to a less accommodative monetary stance before year-end that would involve reduced Gilt purchases and/or outright interest rate hikes. Conversely, Australia seems to have the most bond-bullish climate - a still-negative output gap, plunging consumer confidence, very low inflation and the heaviest exposure to a Chinese economy that is set to cool off. Yet while core inflation remains low at 1.5%, it appears to be bottoming out and the RBA is currently forecasting that its preferred measure of underlying inflation will move up to 2% - the low end of its 2-3% target range - by early 2018, according to their just-released Statement on Monetary Policy.3 In Canada, the BoC continues to take a very cautious view on Canadian growth, despite the robust 4% real GDP growth seen in the first quarter of this year. Sluggish growth in exports and capital spending is expected to be a drag on growth this year, according to the April BoC MPR. Yet the central bank is now "decidedly neutral" and is no longer considering a rate cut as it was earlier this year according to BoC Governor (and BCA alumnus) Stephen Poloz.4 Given all the various factors pushing and pulling on these three economies and central banks, it is perhaps no surprise that yield moves have been highly correlated across these bond markets over the past several months (Chart 9). The most attractive near-term risk/reward opportunities now appear to be in relative yield curve trades rather than directional allocations or cross-country spread trades. Specifically, we see an opportunity to play for a steeper Gilt curve, and a relatively flatter Canadian government bond curve, via a 2-year/30-year box trade. Given the strong readings on current and leading economic indicators in Canada, combined with our view that the recent patch of slower U.S. growth will prove to be temporary, we see the greatest potential for upside growth surprises in Canada. The BoC is likely to wait before delivering rate hikes until there is decisive evidence of accelerating inflation, especially given the potential economic risks deriving from the Canadian housing bubble. However, better-than-expected growth will exert more flattening pressure on the Canadian yield curve than the U.K. or Australian curves, where downside growth risks are greater. Already, the very front end of the Canadian curve is starting to disengage from the U.K. and Australian curves, with the 2-year/5-year flattening modestly in Canada and the other markets showing steepening curves at similar maturities (Chart 10, top panel). We expect that relative flattening pressure to exert itself further out the yield curve for Canadian government debt over the latter half of 2017. Chart 9Yields Are Highly Correlated... Chart 10...Curve Slopes, Slightly Less Correlated In the U.K., the long end of the Gilt curve has rallied to very rich levels, with the 10-year/30-year slope now trading near the bottom of the range that has prevailed since 2014 (bottom panel). Much of that has been driven by a decline in longer-term inflation expectations that has accompanied the more stable British Pound. While the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming Brexit negotiations with the European Union will likely weigh on business confidence and investment spending in the U.K., the immediate impact of the robust Euro Area economy on U.K. exports should provide a boost to U.K. economic growth. Coming at a time when the U.K. is at, or even beyond, full employment, this should put some mild upward pressure on inflation expectations further out the curve, leading to steepening pressures on a relative basis to Canada. This can already be seen in looking at the 2-year/30-year yield curve box between the Canada and the U.K. in Chart 11. In all three panels, we show the steepness of the Canadian bond curve minus that of the Gilt curve, alongside the differentials in actual inflation, and market-based inflation expectations from the index-linked markets, between Canada and the U.K. As can be seen in the top two panels, the Canadian curve looks too steep relative to the U.K. curve given the higher rates of headline and core inflation in the U.K. The bottom panel shows that the 2-year/30-year box is in line with the relative inflation expectations within the two countries. We see this as a sign that U.K. inflation expectations are too low relative to actual U.K. inflation, leaving the Gilt curve too flat relative to the Canadian curve. While this would appear to argue for a relative trade between inflation-linked bonds in Canada and the U.K., the poor liquidity of the small Canadian linker market makes this a difficult trade for most investors to put on. We prefer to express the view via yield curves, particularly with the 2-year/30-year Canada-U.K. box currently priced in the bond forwards to move sideways over the rest of the year (Chart 12). This means that betting on a steeper Gilt curve relative to Canada does not incur negative carry - important for a trade with a more medium-term horizon like this. Chart 11Gilt 2/30 Curve Too Flat Relative To Canada Chart 12Enter A 2/30 Canada-U.K. Box Trade This week, we are adding this 2-year/30-year Canada-U.K. position to our strategic model portfolio at -7bps. The initial target is for the box to return to -50bps - the bottom of the range that has prevailed since 2015. A deeper decline would occur if the BoC begins to signal a rate hike in Canada at some point that puts even more flattening pressure on the Canadian curve, although that is not our base case expectation over the rest of 2017. The risk to the trade would come from a deceleration of U.K. inflation that eliminates the current divergence between realized and expected inflation. What about Australia? We anticipate that there will be an opportunity to move to an eventual overweight position in Australian bonds in the coming months to position for the slowing of Chinese growth, and the related demand for Australian exports, that we expect. We are choosing to stay neutral for now, however, given the current uptick in Australian inflation that muddies the water on any call on RBA monetary policy. Bottom Line: Economic data, as well as our bond market indicators, are giving conflicting signals for the outlook for yields in the U.K., Canada & Australia. Our analysis of the relative growth and inflation dynamics in the three countries leads us to recommend a 2-year/30-year yield curve box trade, positioning for a flatter curve in Canada and a steeper curve in the U.K. Tactical Overlay Housekeeping: Cutting Losses On Portugal Shorts One of our long-held positions in our Tactical Overlay trade portfolio has been a short position in Portugal 10-year government bonds versus a long position in 10-year German Bunds. We put the trade on last summer as part of a broader allocation at the time out of Peripheral European sovereign debt into core European debt. The logic was straightforward - the combined stress of decelerating economic growth and struggling banking systems in the Periphery (made worse by the ECB's negative interest rate policies) would result in some spread widening in Italy, Spain and Portugal. While that story remains true in Italy, both leading economic indicators and measures of financial sector risk like credit default swap (CDS) spreads for senior banks have a decline in Spain and Portugal. While we have already upgraded our recommended allocation to Spanish debt in our model portfolio, we had been reluctant to consider a similar move in Portugal given our concerns about its economy and, more importantly, its banking system. But with leading economic indicators starting to perk up and bank CDS spreads in Portugal falling sharply, and with German Bund yields rising alongside growing market nervousness of a potential ECB taper, Portugal-Germany spreads have tightened sharply. We are belatedly cutting our losses on this position this week and closing out the position at a loss of -1.6%. We plan on publishing a deeper dive on Portugal in the coming weeks to update our views on the country and its bond markets. Bottom Line: Improving growth indicators, and declining measures of banking sector risk, in Portugal have resulted in a sharp narrowing of government spreads versus Germany. We are exiting our short 10-year Portugal/long 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade this week, at a loss of -1.6%. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mpr-2017-04-12.pdf 3 http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2017/may/pdf/statement-on-monetary-policy-2017-05.pdf 4 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/poloz-sees-faster-canada-return-to-full-capacity-key-takeaways The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The U.S. unemployment rate stands 0.1 points below the FOMC's year-end projection and 0.4 points below its estimate of NAIRU. If the unemployment rate keeps falling, it will have nowhere to go but up - and the U.S. has never been able to avoid a recession whenever the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point. So far the FOMC has failed in its efforts to tighten monetary policy. U.S. financial conditions have actually eased sharply since the Fed resumed hiking rates in December. The Fed will turn more hawkish over the coming months. Stay short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract and position for a stronger dollar. What happens in the euro area has become increasingly irrelevant for what happens to EUR/USD. Even if the ECB raises rates somewhat more rapidly than expected, this will be largely counterbalanced by hawkish actions by the Fed. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Feature Beware Of Full Employment Chart 1Recoveries Usually Lose Steam##br## WhenThe Unemployment Rate Falls Below NAIRU After eclipsing 10% in 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in April, 0.1 points below the median end-2017 dot in the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections, and 0.4 points below the FOMC's estimate of NAIRU.1 The fact that most Americans who want to work are able to find jobs is obviously a good thing. However, today's increasingly tight labor market does have a dark side: As Chart 1 illustrates, recoveries have tended to run out of steam whenever the unemployment rate has fallen below its full employment level. Two points about the unemployment rate are worth keeping in mind: The unemployment rate has rarely been stable over time; usually, it is either rising or falling. The former tends to occur very quickly, while the latter is more drawn out. The unemployment rate displays momentum over short horizons, but is "mean-reverting" over the long haul (Chart 2).2 Since there is a limit to how low the unemployment rate can go, periods when it is below its full employment level typically do not last long. This is confirmed by Chart 3, which shows that there is a clear positive correlation between the degree of labor market slack and the onset of the next recession: High slack means that a recession is usually far away, whereas low slack means that a downturn is approaching. And it doesn't take much of an increase in the unemployment rate to sow the seeds for another recession - the U.S. has never escaped a recession in the postwar period whenever the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by a mere one-third of a percentage point (Chart 4). Chart 2The Unemployment Rate Is Mean-Reverting Over The Long Haul, But Displays Momentum In The Short Term Chart 3The Degree Of Labor Market Slack And The Onset Of The Next Recession: A Clear Positive Correlation Chart 4What Goes Down Must Come Up? Rising unemployment tends to generate all sorts of vicious cycles. When someone loses their job, they spend less. The resulting decline in aggregate demand forces firms to lay off workers, leading to even less spending throughout the economy. A weaker economy also makes it more difficult for borrowers to pay back loans, causing them to pare back spending. Falling asset prices only serve to exacerbate this problem. Threading The Needle Today's low unemployment rate puts the Federal Reserve in a bind. On the one hand, if the Fed raises rates too quickly, this could precipitate exactly the sort of downturn that it is trying to avoid. On the other hand, if the Fed fails to raise rates quickly enough, this could cause the economy to overheat. This, in turn, may force the Fed to raise rates aggressively - something that would destabilize both the economy and financial markets. The hope is that the Fed succeeds in threading the needle to ensure that the economy achieves a soft landing. There are some reasons to be optimistic about such an outcome, but also several reasons to be pessimistic. On the optimistic side, inflation expectations remain well anchored. This means that an overheated economy is unlikely to produce a powerful price-cost spiral such as the one that broke out in the 1970s. This limits the risk that the Fed will be forced to raise rates dramatically. The real economy is also not suffering from the sort of clear-cut imbalances that plagued the late innings of the last two business cycles - a massive capex overhang in the late 1990s, and an even larger housing overhang in the years leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. Private debt levels have also fallen as a share of GDP for most of the recovery, unlike in past cycles (Chart 5). On the pessimistic side, uncertainty about the level of the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - will make it difficult for the Fed to calibrate monetary policy in a way that ensures a soft landing. It typically takes 12-to-18 months for changes in monetary conditions to fully make their way through the economy. Thus, if the Fed does end up either too far behind or too far ahead of the curve in normalizing monetary policy, it may not realize this until it's too late. Structurally slower potential GDP growth could also complicate matters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that real potential GDP growth will average only 1.8% over the next 10 years, compared to 3.1% between 1980 and 2007 (Chart 6). Today's equity valuations are arguably pricing in faster GDP growth. Should growth settle below 2% - a rate that has often been associated with stall speed - risk assets could suffer, complicating the Fed's efforts in achieving a soft landing. Chart 5The Economy Is Not Showing ##br##Clear-Cut Signs Of Imbalances Chart 6Potential GDP Growth Is Not ##br##What It Used To Be The Fed's Choice Given the choice between erring on the side of raising rates too slowly or too quickly, the Fed has opted for the former. This is a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. Chart 7 shows that U.S. financial conditions have eased considerably since the Fed resumed raising rates last December, thanks to a weaker dollar, tighter credit spreads, and a soaring stock market. If the whole point of hiking rates is to tighten financial conditions, then the Fed has not done enough. Worries that the headline unemployment rate may understate the true amount of labor market slack partly explain the Fed's angst in raising rates as quickly as it has in past cycles. While the headline rate has fallen back to its 2007 low, the broader U-6 unemployment rate - which incorporates people who are out of the labor market but claim to want a job, as well as those who are working part-time for economic reasons - is still 0.7 points above it. Likewise, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers (ages 25-to-54) is 1.7 points below its pre-recession levels. The "quits rate" - a good measure of labor market confidence - also remains a notch below its pre-recession peak. Perhaps most glaringly, the median duration of unemployment has only fallen back to 10.2 weeks, which is still close to the high of the previous cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Been Easing Chart 8Headline Unemployment Rate ##br##Back To 2007 Levels, But Other ##br##Measures Still Point To Slack Each of these factoids has a counterargument: The elevated share of involuntary part-time workers may be partly due to the effects of Obamacare, which has made it burdensome for companies to add full-time workers to the payrolls;3 the low quits rate and the high median length of unemployment may reflect the aging of the population as well as lower gross job creation (Chart 9); and automation, globalization, and low-skilled immigration may have depressed real wages for less-educated workers, causing them to abandon the labor market (Chart 10). Nevertheless, with core inflation still below the Fed's 2% target, it is not hard to see why the Fed has elected to take a "go slow" approach so far. Chart 9The Labor Market Has Become Less Dynamic Chart 10Less-Educated Men Are Fleeing The Labor Market The Hawks Spread Their Wings That may be changing, however. The growth in nominal unit labor costs has already surpassed 2% and is close to the peaks reached in 2000 and 2007 (Chart 11). Most other measures of wage growth remain in a clear uptrend (Chart 12). If GDP growth accelerates over the remainder of the year, as we expect, the Fed will pursue a more aggressive tightening path than what the market is currently discounting. Chart 11Unit Labor Cost Inflation Close To Past Peaks Chart 12Most Measures Of Wage Growth Are In An Uptrend Recent communications from the Fed have revealed an increasingly hawkish bias. The latest Fed statement downplayed the slowdown in Q1 as "transitory." This follows Chair Yellen's comment that "waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession."4 Investment Conclusions Higher U.S. rate expectations should give the dollar a boost (Chart 13). We do not agree with the often-heard argument that the actions of foreign central banks will materially weaken the dollar. Consider the case of the ECB. There has been much speculation that the ECB will phase out some of its emergency measures. That may well happen, but even if it does, a full-fledged hiking cycle is nowhere on the horizon. According to a recent ECB study, the rate of labor underutilization still stands at 18% in the euro area, 3.5 points higher than in 2008 (Chart 14).5 Stripping out Germany, the rate of underutilization would be seven points higher (Chart 15). It is still too early for Mario Draghi to begin removing monetary accommodation in a concerted manner. Chart 13Higher U.S. Rate Expectations ##br##Should Give The Dollar A Boost Chart 14Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High... Chart 15...Especially Outside Of Germany Moreover, anything the ECB does which inadvertently leads to a stronger euro will likely be matched by offsetting hawkish actions by the Fed. Remember that the Fed needs to tighten financial conditions in order to prevent the unemployment rate from falling so much that it has nowhere to go but back up. A weaker dollar runs contrary to that strategy. The argument above can be applied more broadly. The euro rallied in the lead-up to the French election on the now-realized hope that Emmanuel Macron would prevail. Put aside the fact that Macron's platform calls for cutting the budget deficit from 3.2% of GDP this year to 1% of GDP in 2022 - something which, all things equal, would lead to less monetary tightening and a correspondingly weaker euro. Even if Macron's victory somehow did manage to allow the ECB to raise rates earlier than it would have otherwise, it is hard to believe that this would not influence the pace of Fed rate hikes. U.S. financial conditions could tighten through some combination of higher rates and/or a stronger dollar. The only way the Fed could engineer a tightening in financial conditions while the trade-weighted dollar still weakened would be to jack up interest rates by an inordinate amount. However, this outcome would require that other central banks raise rates even more. That's not going to happen. Stay short EUR/USD. We think the euro will reach parity against the dollar later this year. Where does this leave equities? So long as global growth remains solid and corporate earnings are in an uptrend, the path of least resistance for stocks is up. However, the risk is that the Fed overplays its hand and ultimately tightens monetary policy too much. This could lead to a broad-based global slowdown towards the end of 2018. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is the unemployment rate consistent with stable inflation. 2 An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression using monthly data between 1960 and 2017 shows that the change in the unemployment rate over the coming three months is positively associated with a change in the unemployment rate over the prior three months, and negatively associated with the level of the unemployment gap. 3 See, for example: Marcus Dillender, Carolyn Heinrich, and Susan Houseman, "Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Part-Time Employment: Early Evidence," Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 2016. 4 Janet Yellen, "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To The Congress," February 14, 2017. 5 Please see ECB, "Focus: Assessing Labour Market Slack," Economic Bulletin Issue 3, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. Stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female labour participation is surging. The state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Allowing for euro break-up risk, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. Prefer to gain exposure via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX). Feature "Domestic sources of risk to euro area growth have diminished while global, geo-global sources of risk have increased." - Mario Draghi The Cleanest Dirty Shirt Since the end of 2014, an unspectacular 1.9% growth rate1 has been enough to make the euro area the world's top-performing major economy - bettering the U.S., U.K. and Japan (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekThe Percentage Of The French Population In Employment Is At An All-Time High Chart I-2The Euro Area Is The Top-Performing Economy The euro area economy has achieved this outperformance with exceptionally low volatility. For eight consecutive quarters, growth2 has remained within a very tight 1.2-2.2% band, less than half of the equivalent volatility in the U.S., U.K. and Japan. And growth is now "solid and broad", meaning that it includes all countries. The ECB's dispersion index of value-added growth in different countries stands at a historical minimum. We expect the euro area to remain the cleanest dirty shirt. As Draghi points out, the ECB is less worried about domestic risks and more worried about global risks. Specifically: "Markets are in the course of reassessment of U.S. fiscal policy" - Trumponomics will not be nearly as stimulative as first thought. "How the U.K. economy does post-Brexit has a channel of economic consequences for the euro area." "Possible negative surprises in some emerging market economies" - notably China. If any of the global risks do flare up, the ECB will sit pat, but other central banks will have to become more dovish relative to current expectations. If the risks do not flare up, the ECB will start to reduce its own extreme dovishness - at least with words, if not actions. Either way, ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. And the investment implications are: stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female Labour Participation Is Surging Chart I-3Rising Participation Boosts Employment As Emanuel Macron prepares to become the twenty fifth President of the French Republic, he can take heart from a statistic which may surprise you: The percentage of the French population in employment has never been this high. (Chart of the Week). How can this be when the French unemployment rate is still hovering around 10%? The answer is: as millions of formerly inactive French citizens have entered the labour market, it has lifted the percentage of the population with jobs to an all-time high (Chart I-3). But the flip side of rising participation is that it has kept the unemployment rate elevated - because some citizens who were formerly 'uncounted inactive' are now 'counted unemployed'. Remember that to count as unemployed, a person has to be in the labour market available for work. Some argue that French citizens have simply flooded into the labour market to claim generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits. This argument might hold during downturns, but it cannot explain the 25-year uptrend which also includes economic booms. Unpalatable as it might be to the pessimists, we are left with a more optimistic explanation. France has raised activity levels in the working age population with policies that encourage much greater female participation in the labour market. The important lesson is that when labour participation is rising or falling, we must interpret the headline unemployment rate with extreme care.3 If a country's unemployment rate is high because labour participation has increased - as in France - the labour market is not quite as bad as the high unemployment rate might suggest.4 Conversely, if a country's unemployment rate is low because labour participation has decreased - as in the U.S. (Chart I-4) - the labour market is not quite as good as the low unemployment rate might suggest. Counted unemployment has just been replaced with uncounted inactivity. We propose that the percentage of the working age population in employment is the truer measure of labour utilisation. With surging female participation boosting employment in France and most other European countries (Chart I-5), the state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Chart I-4Participation Down In The U.S.,##br## But Up In Europe... Chart I-5...Led By ##br##Women Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Political Risk Is Correctly Priced Many people saw the Brexit and Trump victories as the leading edge of a wave of economic nationalism. However, subsequent election results in the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Bulgaria and now France have seen economic nationalists consistently underperforming their expectations. In hindsight, the Brexit and Trump victories were idiosyncratic. Both the Remain and Clinton campaigns were lacking in personality or a strong emotional message, and this proved to be their undoing. Nowadays, many voters care about personalities more than policies; emotional appeal matters more than rational appeal. Behavioural psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman calls the emotional way of thinking "System 1", and the colder rational way of thinking "System 2". Crucially, in a tight contest, both the Brexit and Trump campaigns resonated with the emotional System 1 with passionate pleas such as "Take Back Control" and "Make America Great Again". By contrast, the Remain and Clinton campaigns tried to appeal mainly to the rational System 2. But as Kahneman explains, when rational System 2 competes with emotional System 1, emotional System 1 almost always wins. Chart I-6Euro Break-Up Probability = 5% A Year In more recent elections, candidates and parties opposing the nationalists - including Emanuel Macron - have used a good balance of System 1 and System 2 arguments, thereby helping to prevent shock outcomes. This is also likely to be case in the two round French legislative elections on June 11 and 18 which we do not expect to impact financial markets significantly. Does this mean that political risk is over in Europe? No. Until the euro area turns into a permanent and irreversible political union, there has to be a probability of euro break-up. To value euro area assets, investors must ask: what is this break-up probability? The sovereign bond market says it is 5% a year (Chart I-6). This shows up in a discount on German bund yields, because after a euro break-up a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. For the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum. But European equities must trade at a discount for this tail-event. At the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year. In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30-40%. So assuming the tail-event probability is 5% a year, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5-2.0%5 excess annual return over U.S. equities. Today, the valuation discount on European equities relative to U.S. equities implies an excess annual return of 1.8%.6 This makes European equities cheap versus U.S. equities only if the annual probability of euro break-up is less than 5%. Our assessment is that a 5% annual risk is about right. Therefore, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. But to avoid the undesirable sector skews in the Eurostoxx600, a much better way to gain long-term exposure to European equities is via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Prefer A DAX/OMX Combo To The Eurostoxx50 Or Eurstoxx600 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 At an annualized rate. 2 At an annualized rate. 3 Geek's note: the unemployment rate can be expressed as: 100*(participation rate - employment to population rate) / (participation rate). Hence, all else being equal, a rising participation rate will raise the unemployment rate and a falling participation rate will depress the unemployment rate. 4 This lesson applies equally to any studies of labour market slack such as this one: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ebbox201703_03.en.pdf that do not take into account the dynamics of participation rates. 5 5% multiplied by 30-40% equals 1.5-2.0% 6 Through the next ten years. Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Markets Suspended In Disbelief" dated April 13, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The rally in the CAC40 after the French election is technically extended. The recommended technical trade is to short the CAC40 versus the Eurostoxx600. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Macron has won in France; Economic reforms are forthcoming; Euroskeptic parties are moving to the center; Yet Italy remains a real risk; Stick to long French industrials versus German; stay long EUR/USD for now. Feature "A chair, a table, or a bench would be elected rather than her [Le Pen] in this country." - Jean-Luc Mélenchon Third-party candidate Emmanuel Macron is the new president of France following his win over populist and nationalist Marine Le Pen (Table 1). The victory was resounding, with polls underestimating support for the centrist, and vociferously Europhile, Macron (Chart 1). Macron's victory was all the more impressive given the low turnout, which should have favored Le Pen. Table 1Results Of French Presidential Election Chart 1Underestimating Emmanuel There are numerous narratives competing to make sense of the election in France. Our conclusion is simple: Marine Le Pen got trounced by a 39-year old political neophyte with no party organization and an investment-banking background. Le Pen wasn't so much defeated as she was routed, in a veritable Battle of Sedan for the European populists. What does this mean for investors? First, European assets are about to "rip." Second, the EUR/USD may have some more upside in the short term. Third, investors remain overly complacent about Italy, which we think has a good chance of breaking the trend of victories for the centrist forces in Europe. However, this is a story for 2018 and thus off the radar screen for investors at the moment. Le Pen Loses More Than Macron Wins Left-wing firebrand, and surprise first-round performer, Jean-Luc Mélenchon forecast in April that "a chair, a table, or a bench" would defeat Le Pen head-to-head. Naturally, the comment was self-serving for Mélenchon as he was trying to convince swing voters to support his campaign. Nonetheless, we fully agree with his assessment! Not only did Le Pen lose, but she lost to a political neophyte with investment banking on his resume. In France... In 2017... Chart 2Le Pen's Flaw Is The Euro So what happened? It is not a coincidence that Le Pen got precisely the same proportion of voters as the percent of the French public that does not support the euro, around 30-35%. Le Pen's popularity has in fact closely mirrored French Euroskepticism for years, peaking in 2013. Chart 2 essentially illustrates that Le Pen's ceiling is determined by the Euroskeptic mood of the country. We have stressed to clients since the December 2015 regional elections that Le Pen's Euroskpeticism is a major handicap to her political fortunes. In that election, her Front National (FN) was massacred in the second round despite a highly favorable context for an anti-establishment, nationalist party. The election took place on the heels of an epic migration crisis and a massive terrorist attack (which occurred just 23 days before the election).1 The Front National was defeated in all 13 mainland French regions, despite leading in six following the first round. As such, investors should ignore both the positive and negative hype surrounding the media coverage of Macron. The main lesson of the French election is that Euroskepticism does not pay political dividends, not that Le Pen still has a chance in the next election or that Macron has pulled off an extraordinary victory. The upcoming legislative elections - set for two rounds on June 11 and 18 - will cement our call on Le Pen and FN. Polls are sparse, but what we have thus far suggests that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Républicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature (Table 2). We do not have enough polling data to gauge the reliability of this forecast, but it does make sense given FN's previously weak electoral performances in legislative and regional elections. In fact, following Macron's strong performance on May 7, we would be surprised if FN gets more than 15-20 seats in the National Assembly. Table 2Macron May Have To Work With The Republicans What matters for investors is the likely strong performance in the legislative elections for the center-right Les Républicains. Its presidential candidate François Fillon was the leading centrist candidate to get into the second round for most of early 2017 and only faded due to his corruption scandal (Chart 3). His primary challenger - Bordeaux mayor and former conservative Prime Minister Alain Juppé - in fact was comfortably leading all candidates before he was bested by Fillon in late November in party primaries (Chart 4). Chart 3Scandal, Not Policies, Killed Fillon Chart 4Juppe Led The Race Before Fillon Took Over A Macron presidency supported by Les Républicains in the National Assembly could be the best outcome for investors. On the international stage - where the president has no constraints - France will be led by a committed Europhile willing to push Germany towards a more proactive - rather than merely reactive - policy. On the domestic stage - where the National Assembly dominates - Macron's cautiously pro-growth agenda will be pushed further to the right by Les Républicains. In our view, the best outcome would be either genuine "cohabitation," where Macron's En Marche does not get a majority and he is forced to cohabitate with a center-right prime minister, or an En Marche sweep. The worst outcome would be a hung parliament, where Les Républicains refuse to cooperate with En Marche so as not to give Macron any further political wins. We continue to believe that the context is ripe for genuine structural reforms. We expanded on this topic in a February report titled "The French Revolution" and will not repeat the arguments here.2 Suffice it to say that a "silent majority" in France appears ready to incur the pain of reforms (Chart 5). As a play on the reform theme, we have been long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities on a long-term horizon (Chart 6). The idea is that French reforms should suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany (Chart 7). Chart 5"Silent Majority" Wants Reform Chart 6France Will Revive, Germany Is Peaking Chart 7Reforms Could Close This Gap Bottom Line: As we have expected for years, Marine Le Pen is unelectable due to her opposition to European integration. At the minimum, this should allay the fears of many investors that Frexit is a possibility. It has never even been close.3 At its most optimistic, Macron's victory will usher in a period of economic reforms in France. The Big Picture: Europe's Populists Defeated In April 2016 - ahead of the U.K. EU referendum and the U.S. general election - we made a controversial call: Anglo-Saxon populists would surprise to the upside in the upcoming plebiscites, whereas continental European would underperform.4 The U.K. has subsequently chosen Brexit and the U.S. electorate has chosen Donald Trump, both outcomes that we noted were more likely than the consensus expected. On the other side of the ledger, populists were defeated in two Spanish elections (December 2015 and June 2016), the Austrian presidential election in December 2016, and the Dutch general election in April 2017. The latest defeat for the anti-globalization populists is surprising because it happened in France, a country with a long tradition of both. One cannot blame relative economic performance for the outcome, as France has clearly underperformed the U.S. on both the growth and employment fronts (Chart 8). Nor can it be blamed on a more sanguine security situation: since 2015, France has experienced far more tragedy due to terrorist attacks than the U.S. and has been in a state of emergency since the November 2015 terror attack (Chart 9). And while France has largely avoided the 2015 European migration crisis, it was at least far more threatened by it than the U.S. due to mere geography. Chart 8Economic Woes Not Lacking In France... Chart 9... Nor Is Threat Of Terrorism In our view, the long-term socio-economic context is more important than the day-to-day economic and security situation in explaining the success of populists. The French social welfare state - which is onerous, inefficient, and clearly in need of reform (Chart 10) - has nonetheless played a crucial role in tempering the appeal of anti-establishment politics. Chart 10France: Welfare State Needs Reform Chart 11Anti-Establishment Candidates Win... Unlike the U.S. - which has seen the real median household income decline over the past two decades and grow much slower than the economy (Chart 11) - European countries have redistributed the gains of globalization in such a way as to ensure that more people benefit from it (Chart 12). Income inequality has grown in Europe regardless, but to a much lower level - and by a lower magnitude - than in the U.S. (Chart 13). This is perhaps most pronounced in France, where the top 10% of households by income retain much the same share of the economy as they did in 1950 (Chart 14). Chart 12Redistributing Globalization's Gains Chart 13U.S. & U.K.: Outliers On Inequality Chart 14France: Inequality Flat For 70 Years Many of our clients in the U.S. and the U.K. have reacted negatively to our view above. Our analysis is not meant to endorse French levels of social welfare spending. In fact, we are bullish on France precisely because we expect Emmanuel Macron to reduce French state largesse over time. We merely point out that the political effect of a redistributive socio-economic system is greater stability and centrism of the voting public in the midst of a painful socio-economic context. The median voter in Europe is simply not as angry as the median voter in the U.S. This is not by chance, but rather by design. Europe's "socialism" is a relatively modern development and a product of Europe's disastrous inter-war period, which instilled a fear of a populist backlash against failed economic policies of the time. The inter-war period saw the rise of both left- and right-wing extremism, which fed on each other with increasing intensity. These included a failed communist revolution in Germany (1918-1919), a failed Nazi coup in Germany (1923), a fascist takeover of Italy (1925), a Nazi takeover in Germany (1933), far-right unrest in France (1934), and the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). These political upheavals were a product of both the Great Depression and the First World War. But they were also colored by Europe's socio-economic context at the time: very high wealth inequality at the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact, Europe had a much higher starting level of wealth concentration than the U.S., resulting in a much sharper correction during the inter-war period (Chart 15). What most commentators who forecast Europe's doom after the Great Recession missed is that the socio-economic context matters. It is the reality through which voters filter contemporary events. In Europe's case, the median voter was in a much better place to deal with the post-2008 economic and financial crises because Europe's "socialism" had dampened the negative consequences of globalization. In the U.S., and we would argue in the U.K. to a much lesser extent, the median voter was far more exposed to the vagaries of globalization and thus was (and remains) more open to anti-establishment political outcomes. This is the great paradox of the past 18 months: that the two best performing economies in the developed world - the U.S. and the U.K. - experienced the greatest level of populism. To us, it is not much of a paradox. Economic performance is by nature a study of the mean performance, whereas political forecasting deals with the median outcomes. This is not to say that the French are not angry with elites. After all, nearly 50% of the votes cast in the first round of the election went to anti-establishment candidates (Chart 16). However, French voters are not angry enough to want a dramatic reordering of their society, particularly in terms of their support for European institutions. What about other countries in Europe? A trend is emerging across the continent where anti-establishment parties are retaining their commitment to economic redistribution, anti-immigrant sentiment, or unorthodox foreign policy, but abandoning their Euroskepticism for the sake of competitiveness. The best examples of this trend are Spain's Podemos and Greece's SYRIZA, which have evolved in a short period of time into mainstream left-wing parties. Meanwhile, parties that retain an official strategy of Euroskepticism are increasingly finding out that the "Euroskeptic ceiling" is real. As such, these parties are struggling between remaining politically competitive and staying true to their Euroskeptic ideals: Germany: The German Euroskeptic Alternative Für Deutschland (AfD) party has been beset by massive internal conflict and identity crisis. Ousted leader Frauke Petry tried to move the party towards the center, but was rebuked at an April party congress. The AfD is still polling just under 10% (Chart 17), and will therefore enter the Bundestag in the September 24 election, but its leadership is torn between openly embracing the German alt-right and setting a course as a conservative alternative to Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. We would expect the party to enter the Bundestag, but only just, in the upcoming election. Chart 15U.S. And France: Different ##br##Starting Points Of Inequality... Chart 16French Voters##br## Are Angry Chart 17German Euroskeptics To ##br##Squeak Into Bundestag, At Best Austria: The presidential candidate of the anti-establishment Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), Norbert Hofer, tried mightily to soften his Euroskepticism ahead of the December 2016 elections. He failed and lost the election despite a solid lead in the polls for much of the year. Austria is set to hold general elections by October 2018 and support for the FPO has clearly peaked (Chart 18). Given that all other parties in Austria are pro-EU, the FPO is likely to remain isolated. Finland: The "True Finns," since rebranded as just "The Finns," were once the only competitive Euroskeptic party in northern Europe. They did very well in the 2015 general election and entered the governing coalition. To do so, they compromised on their Euroskeptic positions and became largely irrelevant, with a big dip in support (Chart 19). April municipal elections went terribly for The Finns, with the Europhile Green League emerging as the big winner. An upcoming party congress in June will determine the future of the party and whether it swings towards populism or centrism. Chart 18Austrian Anti-Establishment Has Peaked Chart 19Finnish Anti-Establishment Has Peaked Italy: The one party to watch over the next several months is Italy's Five Star Movement (5SM). There is evidence that 5SM is itself riven by internal conflict over how far to take its Euroskepticism. And several moves by party leadership - including attempting to leave the legislative alliance with UKIP at the European Parliament level - appear designed to pursue the political center. The problem, however, is that there is little evidence that the Italian median voter is as committed to European integration. This remains the key risk for Europe going forward. Bottom Line: Populism has underperformed in continental Europe, much to the surprise of most commentators. Europe's economic redistribution has dampened demands for anti-establishment outcomes. Evidence suggests that Euroskeptic parties will continue to migrate to the center, at least as far as European integration is concerned, in the near future. One outlier to this view is Italy, which we elaborate on below. Investment Implications European risk assets should continue to outperform the U.S. in the coming months. The European economy continues to fire on all cylinders, whereas the U.S. appears to have hit a soft patch, according to the sharply divergent Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 20).5 The euro may benefit from the reduction in risk premia for the time being. We will retain our long EUR/USD for now, but look to close it over the summer as we doubt the ECB's commitment to a hawkish turn in monetary policy ahead of critical risks in 2018. At the forefront of those risks is the upcoming Italian election. As we have argued repeatedly for two years, the Italy's Euroskeptic turn is real and underpinned by data. Whereas the median European has been far less Euroskeptic than the conventional wisdom has held, the median Italian is becoming more Euroskeptic. We spent a week in Europe warning clients in London, Paris, and Zurich of the upcoming Italian risks. There was little appetite for our bearish view. Even clients in the U.K. who previously held deeply skeptical views of the Euro Area's ability to survive have changed their view on Italy. Why such complacency? The oft-repeated refrain was that Italian politics have always been a mess. The election, which is highly likely to produce either a weak coalition or a hung parliament, will therefore not produce a definitive outcome worthy of risk premia. We highly disagree with this view. Our concern with Italy is not the current polling of Euroskeptic parties, but rather the underlying turn in the Italian electorate towards greater acceptance of a future outside of Europe (Chart 21). If the median voter is more willing to entertain Euroskeptic outcomes, than the Euroskeptic parties will not be forced to adopt a centrist position, as they have done in the rest of Europe. Chart 20U.S. Economy Hits A Soft Patch Chart 21Italy: The Real Risk To Euro Area Nonetheless, investor complacency tells us that European asset outperformance could last well into late 2017. There will be no immediate risk rotation from the French election to the Italian one. The market will have to be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus, likely in Q1 2018. Until then, the party will continue. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: U.S. growth expectations have become overly pessimistic. A Q2 rebound will lead to higher global bond yields and a steeper U.S. Treasury curve. UST / Bund Spread: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. USD Hedging Costs: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Feature Chart 1Global Recovery Will Persist The synchronized global recovery that took hold in the second half of 2016 has stalled so far this year. Measures of economic sentiment, such as the Global ZEW survey and our own Boom/Bust Indicator, have rolled over from high levels and global bonds have clawed back some of last year's lost returns (Chart 1). Year-to-date, the Bloomberg Barclays Global Government Bond index has returned +3%, after having lost more than 9% between the July trough in the Global ZEW index and the end of last year. In our view, a repeat of early 2016's global growth slowdown and bond market rally, which saw the Global ZEW index fall below zero and the Global Government Bond index return 11.6% in 2016H1, is not in the cards. The global economy is on much firmer footing than at this time last year. U.S. Growth: Past Peak Pessimism First quarter U.S. GDP growth was a disappointing 0.7%, but is poised to bounce back strongly in Q2. The volatile inventories component subtracted 0.9% from overall Q1 growth, harsh weather wreaked havoc on the March employment report and there continue to be problems with residual seasonality depressing first quarter GDP data.1 The outlook is much brighter moving forward. The latest employment report showed that the U.S. economy added a healthy 211k jobs in April and our model is pointing toward a further acceleration (Chart 2). Economic growth can be thought of as a combination of aggregate hours worked and labor productivity (Chart 3). With aggregate hours worked growing at 1.7% year-over-year and labor productivity growth having averaged 0.6% (annualized) per quarter since 2012, real U.S. GDP growth of around 2.3% seems like a reasonable forecast. Chart 2Labor Market Still Strong Chart 3Look For Above 2% Growth There is even some reason to suspect that labor productivity could strengthen during the next few quarters. A recent IMF paper2 attributed weak post-crisis productivity growth to a combination of structural and cyclical factors, but also noted that weak investment in physical capital may be responsible for lowering total factor productivity growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points per year in advanced economies during the post-crisis period. With leading indicators pointing to still further gains in fixed investment (Chart 3, bottom panel), we would not be shocked to see productivity growth enjoy a modest late-cycle rebound. Chart 4Stronger Productivity = Steeper Curve All else equal, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth would slow the increase in unit labor costs. Unit labor costs are a combination of wages (compensation-per-hour) and productivity (output-per-hour), and have historically tracked changes in the slope of the U.S. yield curve (Chart 4). Faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening, and slower wage growth with Fed easing. For this reason, all wage measures perform reasonably well tracking changes in the yield curve. But unit labor costs perform best because they also incorporate productivity growth, and low productivity growth can flatten the yield curve by pulling down long-dated yields. Rapid increases in compensation-per-hour and muted productivity growth have combined to give the yield curve a strong flattening bias during the past several years. Any increase in productivity growth would slow the uptrend in unit labor costs relative to other wage measures, allowing the yield curve to steepen. In fact, we continue to recommend that investors position for a steeper U.S. yield curve by going long the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade produces positive returns when the 2/10 slope steepens (Chart 4, panel 3), but has also returned +19 bps since we initiated the position last December, even though the curve has flattened since then. The reason for the trade's strong performance in an unfavorable curve environment is that the 5-year yield had been unusually elevated compared to the rest of the curve. Our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread versus the 2/10 slope showed that the 5-year note was one standard deviation cheap on the curve as recently as mid-March (Chart 4, bottom panel). This undervaluation has mostly dissipated and the 5-year note now appears only slightly cheap. For our curve trade to outperform from here, it will likely require the 2/10 slope to steepen.3 Bottom Line: With weak Q1 GDP now in the rearview mirror, we are likely past the point of peak pessimism on U.S. growth. Expect global bond yields to rise and the U.S. yield curve to steepen as the economic data start to reflect an environment of above-trend growth, in the neighborhood of 2% - 2.5%. European Growth & The Risk From China While the U.S. data have disappointed in recent weeks, as evidenced by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index having dipped below zero (Chart 5), the European economy has consistently bested expectations (Chart 5, panel 2). As a result, the Treasury / Bund spread has narrowed from high levels during the past few months. In practice, economic surprise indexes tend to mean revert because positive data surprises beget increasingly optimistic expectations. Eventually, overly optimistic expectations become too high a hurdle and the data start to disappoint. In our view, U.S. expectations have become unduly pessimistic while the Eurozone surprise index appears overdue for a correction. Against this back-drop, we expect the Treasury / Bund spread to widen in the near term as the large divergence between the U.S. and European surprise indexes starts to narrow. Further making the case for a wider Treasury / Bund spread is the recent performance of the Chinese economy. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy service recently observed that growth differentials between the U.S. and Europe are highly correlated with indicators of Chinese growth.4 This should not be overly surprising since Europe trades more with China and other Emerging Markets than does the United States. Along those lines, the IMF has calculated that a 1% growth shock to Emerging Markets impacts European growth by nearly 40 basis points, while it impacts U.S. growth by only 10 basis points.5 The worry at the moment is that Chinese monetary conditions have started to tighten, and China's Manufacturing PMI is rolling over alongside weaker commodity prices. These trends usually coincide with the underperformance of Europe relative to the U.S. (Chart 6). Chart 5Surprise Indexes Will Converge Chart 6Look To China To Trade UST / Bund Spread Our China Investment Strategy service highlights the importance of the trade-weighted RMB as a driver of Chinese growth.6 The RMB's 30% appreciation between 2012 and 2015 applied a massive deflationary force to China's economy, while its more recent depreciation helped boost producer prices, enhance profit margins and reduce the real cost of funding (Chart 7). Chart 7Monetary Conditions ##br##Still Fairly Stimulative More recently, the pace of the RMB's depreciation has slowed and this likely explains the weakness in China's Manufacturing PMI and commodity prices. Our China strategists are quick to note that while the pace of RMB depreciation has slowed, it is still not appreciating, and real interest rates deflated by the producer price index remain negative. In other words, monetary conditions have become somewhat less stimulative, but they should still be supportive of further economic growth. Although the Chinese economic data are likely to moderate in the coming months, barring the major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth will avoid a collapse and remain reasonably buoyant. Similarly, we would also expect European growth expectations to soften in the coming months, but growth is very likely to remain above trend and the ECB is still on track to adopt a less accommodative policy stance over the next year. In the most likely scenario, a few hints will be given at the June ECB meeting, and then an announcement that asset purchases will be tapered in 2018 will be made at the September meeting. The market will correctly assume that rate hikes will follow the taper, and this re-pricing of rate expectations will open up a window in the second half of this year when the Treasury / Bund spread can tighten. However, it is still too soon to adopt this position. Bottom Line: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. U.S. Bond Investors Should Expand Their Borders Divergences that have opened up between U.S. short-term interest rates and short-term rates in other developed countries mean that U.S. bond investors now face much lower currency hedging costs. In addition, increasingly negative cross-currency basis swap spreads have become a permanent feature of the post-crisis investment landscape, and unless significant regulatory changes occur, we expect they are here to stay. Combined, both of these factors make it incredibly attractive for U.S. bond investors to swap their U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and invest in foreign government bonds. In this week's report we explain why this is an attractive trade for U.S. investors and why it will likely remain so for quite some time. What Is The Basis Swap Spread? An excellent definition of the cross-currency basis comes from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) who define it as "the difference between the direct dollar interest rate in the cash market and the implied dollar interest rate in the [currency] swap market".7 In essence, the existence of a negative basis swap spread should mean that there is an opportunity to arbitrage the difference between interest rates in the cash market and implied interest rates in the currency swap market. However, post-crisis regulatory constraints on bank balance sheets appear to have made this arbitrage prohibitive. Banks are either unable or unwilling to arbitrage the basis swap spread back to zero, and this increases the cost of U.S. dollars in FX swap markets. As a quick example, we can calculate the 10-year German Bund yield hedged into U.S. dollars using currency forwards. Hedged yield = Unhedged yield - Cost of hedging Where: Cost of hedging = forward exchange rate / spot exchange rate In this case, we define the exchange rates as euros per 1 U.S. dollar. By covered interest rate parity, we can also calculate the cost of hedging as: Cost of hedging = (1 + euro interest rate + basis swap spread) / (1 + USD interest rate) Using current 3-month interest rates, this means that the cost of hedging from euros into U.S. dollars is: Cost of hedging = (1 - 0.36% - 0.3%) / (1 + 1.18%) = -1.82% This means that the 10-year German Bund yield rises from 0.42% to 2.24%, from the perspective of a U.S. dollar investor, after hedging the currency on a 3-month horizon. In other words, U.S. investors can significantly increase the average yield of their portfolios by lending U.S. dollars over short time horizons and investing the proceeds into non-U.S. bonds. In Chart 8 we show the difference this currency hedging makes for German, Japanese and French 10-year government bonds. Current hedged 10-year yields for all the major bond markets are also shown on page 13 of this report. But for how long can this trade continue? In short, it can continue for as long as U.S. short-term interest rates increase relative to non-U.S. short-term interest rates and for as long as basis swap spreads move further into negative territory. At the moment there is no widespread agreement on what drives the day-to-day fluctuations in the basis swap spread. The BIS has posited a model where dollar strength weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets, causing them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, and leading to increasingly negative basis swap spreads (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8Higher Yields Via Currency Hedging Chart 9Basis Swaps, Reserves And The Dollar Meanwhile, Zoltan Pozsar from Credit Suisse has identified a link between basis swap spreads and reserves on the Fed's balance sheet (Chart 9, bottom panel).8 Specifically, as the Fed winds down its balance sheet it will be draining cash reserves from the banking system and replacing them with Treasury securities. This could cause money to leave the FX swap market and flow into Treasuries. The result is less liquidity in the FX swap market and increasingly negative basis swap spreads. Interestingly, the run-up to the debt ceiling in the U.S. has presented a test of this view. To stay under the debt ceiling the U.S. Treasury department has drawn down its cash account at the Fed and removed T-bill supply from the market. The result has been a temporary increase in reserve balances. As the theory would have predicted, basis swap spreads have moved closer to zero as reserves have increased. Going forward, the Fed is very likely to start winding down its balance sheet later this year. In all likelihood this will serve to pressure basis swap spreads even further below zero. Meanwhile, short-term interest rates in the U.S. will probably continue to rise more quickly than in most other developed markets. This means that the cost of hedging should become increasingly negative for U.S. investors. In Chart 10 we show that as the cost of hedging becomes more negative, total returns from a USD-hedged position in German bunds tend to outpace total returns from a position in U.S. Treasuries. Similarly, Chart 11 shows that USD-hedged Japanese government bonds (JGBs) also tend to outperform U.S. Treasuries when the cost of hedging falls. Chart 10Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Germany Chart 11Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Japan We should note that the relationships between hedging costs and relative total returns shown in Charts 10 & 11 are not perfect, and there will be instances when Treasuries can outperform even if hedging costs continue to decline. However, in the long run, as long as short-term U.S. interest rates continue to rise more quickly than short-term interest rates in the Eurozone or Japan, and especially if the Fed's upcoming balance sheet contraction leads to more deeply negative basis swap spreads, then U.S. investors should continue to boost their yields by lending dollars and investing in bunds and JGBs. Bottom Line: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our U.S. Investment Strategy service took up the issue of residual seasonality in a recent report. Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Spring Snapback?", dated April 24, 207, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 IMF Staff Discussion Note, "Gone with the Headwinds: Global Productivity", https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2017/04/03/Gone-with-the-Headwinds-Global-Productivity-44758 3 Our outlook for the U.S. yield curve was discussed in detail in a recent report. Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 IMF Multilateral Policy Issues Report: 2014 Spillover Report https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/062514.pdf 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weeky Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?", dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7 http://www.bis.org/publ/work592.pdf 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/13/2187317/where-would-you-prefer-your-balance-sheet-banks-or-the-federal-reserve/ Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification