Economy

Special Report

Feature A Conversation With Ms. Mea I met with some of our European clients over the past few weeks, and used the opportunity to connect with Ms. Mea, a long-standing client of BCA who visited us last fall.1 As always, Ms. Mea was keen to scrutinize our viewpoints, delve into intricacies of our analysis and understand the differences between our interpretations of the global macro landscape and the prevailing market consensus. I hope clients find our latest dialogue insightful. Ms. Mea: It seems your negative call on emerging markets (EM) is finally beginning to work out: EM share prices in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM) have dropped to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-1). It seems we are at a critical juncture: If share prices bottom at these levels, a major upleg is likely and, conversely, if they break below this technical support, considerable downside may be in the cards. What makes you think this is not a buying opportunity? Indeed, EM stocks are testing a critical technical level. I doubt this is a buying opportunity. It looks like EM corporate profit and revenue growth have peaked (Chart I-2, top and middle panels). The question is not if but how much downside there is. I believe the downside will be substantial because the forces that drove this recovery are in the process of reversing. Chart I-1EM Equities Are At Critical Juncture Chart I-2EM Profits Have Topped Out First, the Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus of early 2016 has been reversed, and our China credit and fiscal spending impulse projects considerable downside in EM non-financial corporate earnings growth (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Second, Asia's manufacturing cycle is downshifting (Chart I-3). Korea's export growth is flirting with contraction (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Even if U.S. final demand remains robust, U.S. imports could slow, hurting the rest of the world. Chart I-4 illustrates that America's imports have been growing faster than its final demand, implying re-stocking of imported goods. Typically, periods of re-stocking are followed by waves of de-stocking. During the latter periods, import growth decelerates. Chart I-3Asia: Trade Is Decelerating Chart I-4U.S.: Final Demand And Imports Third, investor sentiment remains quite bullish on EM and EM equity valuations are not cheap in both absolute and relative terms (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, credit spreads as well as local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys are very narrow. Chart I-5EM Equities Are Not Cheap Last but not least, U.S. wage growth and core inflation are rising. This warrants rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a rally in the dollar. As EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM stocks and bonds will sell off too. In a nutshell, it appears that the December and January spike in EM share prices was the final blow-off phase of this cyclical bull market. It is typical for a major market move to culminate with a bang. It seems this was the case with EM share prices, currencies and local bonds in December and January. Interestingly, the fact that EM share prices have failed to break above their previous highs is a bad omen (Chart I-1 on page 1). If our negative outlook on China's industrial cycle, commodities prices and the bullish view on the U.S. dollar play out, the current selloff in EM risk assets will progress into another bear market similar to the 2014-'15 episode. Ms. Mea: There is a widely held belief in the investment community that we are in the late expansion phase of the global business cycle. Late cyclical equity sectors, especially commodities and industrials, typically outperform at this stage. If so, this warrants overweighting EM as high commodities prices are going to help EM equities outperform DM ones. This is contrary to your recommended strategy of underweighting EM versus DM. Where and why do you differ from the consensus view? When discussing cycles, it is important to specify which economy we are referencing. With respect to the U.S. economy, I agree that we may be in a late-cycle expansion phase, when growth is strong, and wages and inflation are rising. In fact, in my opinion, U.S. wages and core CPI are likely to surprise to the upside (Chart I-6). Based on America's current economic dynamics, it makes sense to be overweighting late cyclicals. That said, just because the U.S. is in the late phase of its own expansion cycle doesn't mean China is at the same stage too. China's business cycle varies greatly from that of the U.S. and Europe. In my opinion, China's industrial sector in general, and capital spending in particular, are re-commencing the downtrend that took place between 2012-'16, but was interrupted by the injection of massive credit and fiscal stimulus in early 2016. Chart I-7 portrays China's manufacturing cycle along with the performance of EM stocks relative to their DM peers, as well as commodities prices. A few observations are in order: Chart I-6U.S. Wages And Inflation To Rise Further Chart I-7Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? China's capital spending and most of its industrial sectors were in their late cycle expansion phase in 2009-2011. The post-Lehman monetary and fiscal stimulus produced an unprecedented boom in investment spending. Yet, it was unsustainable because it created a misallocation of capital, enormous amounts of debt and asset bubbles. During this period, EM outperformed DM by a large margin, and global late cyclicals - such as materials, energy and industrials - outperformed the global equity benchmark. From 2012 to early 2016, there was a major downtrend in China's capital spending. Demand for capital goods/machinery and commodities downshifted and in some cases contracted (Chart I-8). After the new round of stimulus in early 2016, the Chinese economy recovered. However, the impact of this stimulus has now waned, and policymakers have been tightening policy since early 2017. Consequently, the downtrend in the mainland's industrial sector appears to be re-commencing and will likely deepen. In short, I view the rally in EM and commodities over the past two years as a mid-cycle hiatus in the bear market that began in 2011. Odds are that EM and commodities will sell off even if DM demand holds up. Chart I-9 denotes that global machinery and chemical stocks have already been underperforming the global equity benchmark. Energy stocks are still being supported by the rally in oil prices, but in my opinion it is a matter of time before oil prices roll over (we discuss our oil outlook below). However, given energy stocks have done so poorly relative to other sectors amid rising crude prices, they may not underperform, even if oil prices relapse. Chart I-8China: Construction Industry Profile Chart I-9Global Late Cyclicals Have Underperformed In 2010, I made the call that EM share prices, currencies and commodities had peaked for the decade. At the same time, I argued that technology, health care, and the equity markets with large weights in these sectors, namely the U.S., would deliver strong returns. This roadmap by and large remains pertinent. Chart I-10China Accounts For 50% Of ##br##Global Metals Demand Typically, winners of the previous decade perform poorly during the entire following decade. EM and commodities were the superstars of the last decade. There are still two more years to go in this decade. Consistent with this roadmap, we expect EM risk assets and commodities to relapse anew in the next 12-18 months. While the last two years were very painful not to chase the EM and commodities rallies, odds are that this has been a mid-cycle hiatus in a decade-long downtrend. Ms. Mea: Don't you think strong growth in DM will drive commodities prices higher, despite weakness in China? Are you bearish on oil because of China's demand too? I am optimistic about domestic demand in the U.S. and Europe. Yet, commodities prices, especially industrial commodities, are driven by China, not the U.S., EU or India. China consumes at least 50% of industrial and base metals (Chart I-10). Consistent with our view of a downtrend in China's capital spending in general, and construction in particular, we remain downbeat on industrial metals prices. Regarding oil prices, China's share in global oil demand is much smaller than it is for metals - the country consumes 14% of the world's petroleum products. Further, we are not negative on Chinese household demand for gasoline, but we are negative on mainland diesel demand. The latter fluctuates with industrial activity, as Chart I-11 illustrates. Importantly, oil prices will likely go down even if China's oil consumption growth remains robust. The basis is as follows: Investors' net long positions in oil are at record high levels (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China's Diesel Demand Chart I-12Investors Are Record Long Oil Traders have been buying oil because of rollover yield. Since the oil market is in backwardation, investors have been capturing rollover yield when they roll over contracts. Oil has been a carry trade over the past year as expectations of tight supply and a weaker U.S. dollar have spurred record numbers of investors to go long oil. As the U.S. dollar strengthens and China's growth slows, these traders will likely head for the exits with respect to their long oil positions. China has been importing more oil than it consumes since 2014. Our hunch is it has been accumulating strategic oil reserves. With oil prices spiking to $70, the pace of accumulation of strategic oil reserves may slow, and prices could retreat. China traditionally purchases commodities on dips. Finally, oil typically shoots up in the late stages of the business cycle. Chart I-13 illustrates that oil prices lag or at best are coincident with the global industrial cycle. In fact, often these spikes in oil prices - like the current one - occur due to supply constraints in the late stages of the business cycle. Nevertheless, they often mark the top. Chart I-13Oil Is Often Late To Peak In brief, while the case for oil is different than for industrial metals, risks to crude prices are tilted to the downside over the next six-to-nine months or so.2 Ms. Mea: One of the key drivers of your view on global markets has been a strong U.S. dollar. Why do you think the recent rebound in the dollar has staying power, and how far will it rally? Odds are that the U.S. dollar has made a major bottom and has entered a cyclical bull market. While we are not sure whether the greenback will surpass its early 2016 highs, it will at least re-test those levels on many crosses, especially versus EM and commodities currencies. The euro and other European currencies will likely not drop to their early 2016 lows, and as a result, EM currencies stand to depreciate considerably versus both the U.S. dollar and the euro. This will undermine the dollar- and euro-based investors' returns in EM equities and local currency bonds, and lead to an exodus of foreign funds. Contrary to market consensus thinking, the EM local interest rate differential over DM does not drive EM exchange rates. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between local interest rate spreads over U.S. rates and their currencies (Chart I-14). It is the exchange rate that drives local rates in EM. Currency depreciation pushes interest rates up, and exchange rate appreciation leads to lower interest rates. Many EM currencies correlate with commodities prices and global trade. The latter two will likely weigh on EM exchange rates in the next six to nine months. What's more, EM are much more leveraged to China than to DM. Both EM currencies as well as EM's relative equity performance versus DM mirror marginal shifts between Chinese and DM imports - the latter is a proxy for their domestic demand (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Currencies And Yields Differential Over U.S. Chart I-15EM Is Much More Sensitive To China Than DM As China's growth slumps, EM will likely catch pneumonia, while DM gets away with just a cold. This entails that EM currencies will come under downward pressure against both the U.S. dollar and the euro. Finally, provided EM ex-China has accumulated a lot of U.S. dollar debt, their currency depreciation will elevate debt stress. While we do not expect this to result in massive defaults, the ability of debtor companies with foreign currency liabilities to invest and expand will be curtailed. This is a negative for growth. EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising U.S. interest rates. From the perspective of their debt servicing costs alone, 10% dollar appreciation is much more painful than a 100 basis point rise in U.S. dollar rates. Hence, regardless of whether the greenback's rally occurs amid rising or falling U.S. bond yields, it will impose meaningful pain on EM debtors. In this context, EM sovereign and corporate spreads are too tight and will likely widen if and as EM currencies and commodities prices decline. Ms. Mea: In last week's statement, China's Politburo omitted the word "deleveraging" and the People's Bank of China cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR). Notably, onshore bond yields have dropped a lot. Does this not mean that stimulus is in the pipeline and the point of maximum stress for EM and commodities is now behind us? I doubt it. First, China's official media outlet, Caixin,3 explicitly stated that the Politburo statement does not mean either new stimulus or that the policy of battling financial excesses has been abandoned. Second, the RRR cut has led to only small net liquidity injections in the banking system. Its primary goal was to reduce interest rate costs for banks. Are falling bond yields in China a bullish or bearish signal for China-related risk assets? It is not clear. In 2017, interest rates rose considerably, yet China/EM risk assets completely ignored it. I was puzzled by this. Meanwhile, the recent drop in bond yields has coincided with falling EM share prices (Chart I-16). Third, the budget plan for 2018 does not entail major fiscal stimulus. Table I-1 denotes aggregate fiscal and quasi-fiscal spending will rise by 8% in 2018 compared to an actual rise of 8.6% in 2017 and 8.1% in 2016. All numbers are for nominal growth. Table I-1China: Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Spending (Annual Nominal Growth Rates) The government can always change its budgetary plans and boost fiscal spending beyond what is initially planned. This was the case in 2016. However, without material deterioration in growth, it is unlikely. The authorities undertook the 2015-2016 stimulus because of extremely weak growth and plunging global financial markets. Fourth, some commentators have noted that land sales have been strong, entailing more local government revenues and hence more infrastructure investment. Yet Chart I-17 portrays that the broad money impulse leads land sales. If their past relationship holds, land sales will decrease in the next 12 months. Chart I-16China's Bond Yields And EM Stocks Chart I-17China: Land Sales Are To Slump Finally, the regulatory clampdown on banks and shadow banking is ongoing. This along with the anti-corruption campaign in the financial industry could have a larger impact on credit origination than a marginal drop in interest rates or marginal liquidity provision. On the whole, if the authorities, again, open the credit and fiscal spigots wide, they will relinquish their pledge of structural reforms, a reduction of financial excesses and containing rising leverage. This would entail policymakers opting for a short-term gain in sacrifice of the country's long-term economic outlook. Growth financed by banks originating money out of thin air will ultimately (in the years ahead) lead to lower productivity and higher inflation - i.e., stagflation. I believe Beijing understands this and will not open the credit and fiscal taps too fast or too wide. In brief, China-related risk assets will likely sell off a lot before the next round of stimulus arrives. Ms. Mea: What about Chinese consumer spending and the outlook for technology companies that have become dominant in the EM equity index? Does your negative outlook for investment spending entail a downtrend in household spending? I have been bearish on China's industrial cycle and capex, but not on consumer spending. In fact, household expenditure growth is booming and is unlikely to slow a lot, even amid a downtrend in the construction sector. However, there are a number of reasons to expect a moderation of the current torrid pace of household spending: Capital spending accounts for 42% of GDP, and as it slumps, job creation and income gains will slow. If banks originate less credit, there will be less investment, and income growth will likely be affected. Contrary to widely held beliefs, Chinese households have become a bit leveraged - the ratio of household debt to disposable income is slightly higher in China than in the U.S. (Chart I-18). Further, borrowing costs in China are above those in the U.S. This entails that debt servicing costs as a share of disposable income are higher for households in China than in the U.S. Chart I-18Household Leverage: China And U.S. Not surprisingly, the authorities are clamping down on banks and shadow banking lending to households. It seems that policymakers in China worry much more about credit and leverage excesses than global investors. We published an in-depth Special Report on China's real estate market on April 6 where we argued that excesses remain large and a period of property price deflation cannot be ruled out.4 This means that property wealth effects could turn from a tailwind to a headwind for households for a period of time. All that said, I am not bearish on household spending, apart from real estate purchases. What does this entail for mega-cap companies' share prices, like Tencent and Alibaba? For sure, technology will continue to gain importance in China, like elsewhere. However, given these stocks have seen significant share price inflation and trade at high multiples, buying these stocks at current levels may not be a good investment. Valuations and business models as well as regulatory risks are key in the current circumstances. We, like all macro strategists, can add little value on how to value internet/social media companies and assess their business models. From a big-picture perspective, Chart I-19 demonstrates that Tencent's and Amazon's share prices have gone up 12- and10-fold, respectively, in real U.S. dollar terms since January 2010, as much as the run-up that occurred during previous bubbles. Chart I-19Each Decade Had A Mania With respect to performance of other heavyweights like TSMC and Samsung, the electronics cycle - like overall trade in Asia - has topped out, as evidenced by relapsing semiconductor prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-20Semiconductor Prices Have Rolled Over This is a very cyclical sector, and a further slowdown is to be expected following the growth outburst of the past 18 months. This may be enough to cause a meaningful correction in technology hardware and semi stocks. Ms. Mea: Finally, translating these themes into market strategy, what are your strongest conviction recommendations? Investment and asset allocation strategy should favor DM over EM in equity, currency and credit spaces. This strategy will likely pay off in both risk-on and risk-off environments. Our overweights within the EM equity universe are Mexico, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand and central Europe. In the meantime, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia are our strong-conviction underweights. In terms of sector trades, I would emphasize our long-standing short EM banks / long U.S. banks position. Finally, it seems EM currencies are breaking down versus the U.S. dollar. There is much more downside, and traders and investors should capitalize on this trend by being short a basket of EM currencies like the BRL, the ZAR, the CLP, the MYR and the IDR versus the dollar. For fixed-income investors, depreciating EM currencies are a major headwind for both local currency and U.S. dollar bonds, and we recommend defensive positioning. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available on emsbcaresearch.com 2 This differs from BCA's house view which is bullish on oil prices. 3 "Caixin View: Politburo Comments on Expanding Domestic Demand Don't Signal Stimulus," Caixin Global, April 2017. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, the link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a tradeable reversal in yields. The trade-weighted euro has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. We have a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Feature Entering the fifth month of the year, one puzzle for investors is the conflicting messages coming from banks and bonds. While banks' relative performance is close to its 2018 low, bond yields are not far from their year-to-date high (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekBanks Or Bonds: Which One Is Right? This poses a puzzle because the performances of banks and bond yields are usually joined at the hip. The underperformance of the economically sensitive banks would suggest that global growth is decelerating, whereas the performance of bond yields would suggest that global activity is holding up well. Which one is right? The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Looking at the other classically cyclical sectors, the mystery seems to deepen. Industrials and basic materials are also in very clear downtrends this year, which corroborates the message from the banks. But the oil and gas sector is close to a year high, which corroborates the message from bond yields (Charts I-2-I-4). Chart I-2Industrials Have Underperformed... Chart I-3...And Basic Materials Have Underperformed Chart I-4...But Oil And Gas Has Outperformed... The conflicting messages from banks, basic materials and industrials on one side and bond yields and oil and gas equities on the other side reflect the disconnect between non-oil commodity prices which have drifted lower this year and oil prices which have moved sharply higher (Chart I-5). This disconnect, resulting from differing supply dynamics in the different commodity markets, points us to a likely solution to our puzzle. Chart I-5...Because Oil Has Disconnected ##br##From Other Commodities The classically cyclical sectors are taking their cue from global growth and industrial activity, which does appear to be losing momentum. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. In contrast, bond yields are taking their cue from the oil price, given its major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and thereby on central bank reaction functions. Based on previous mini-cycles, we can confidently say that mini-downswing phases last at least six to eight months and that the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. In this regard, the apparent disconnect between decelerating activity and un-budging bond yields risks extending this mini-downswing phase. Therefore, for the next few months, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. This sector strategy necessarily impacts regional allocation as explained in the next section. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Even More Investment Reductionism Imagine a world in which all the global commodity firms decided to get their stock market listings in London; all the global financials decided to list on euro area bourses; all the major tech companies listed in New York; and all the industrials listed in Tokyo. Clearly, each major stock market would just be a play on its underlying global sector and nothing more. Our imagined world is an exaggeration, but it does illustrate an important truth. A quarter of the market capitalisation of each major stock market is in one dominant sector, and this gives each equity index its defining fingerprint: for the FTSE100 it is commodity firms; for the Eurostoxx50 it is financials; for the S&P500 it is technology; and for the Nikkei225 it is industrials (Table I-1). Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Defining Fingerprint There is another important factor to consider: the currency. A global oil company like BP receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, BP's global business is currency neutral. But BP's stock price is quoted in pounds. This means that if the pound strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. So the currency is the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market, albeit it is an inverse relationship: a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak currency helps it. The upshot is that the defining fingerprints for the major indexes turn out to be: FTSE100: global commodity shares expressed in pounds. Eurostoxx50: global banks expressed in euros. S&P500: global technology expressed in dollars. Nikkei225: global industrials expressed in yen. And that's pretty much all you need to know for regional equity allocation! The charts in this report should leave you in no doubt. True to our Investment Reductionism philosophy, the relative performance of the regional equity indexes just reduces to their defining fingerprints: FTSE100 versus S&P500 reduces to global commodity companies in pounds versus global tech companies in dollars, Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 reduces to global banks in euros versus global industrials in yen. And so on (Charts I-6-I-11). Chart I-6FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-7FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Commodity ##br##Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-8FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In ##br##Euros Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-10Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In##br## Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-11S&P 500 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Tech In ##br##Dollars Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Right Way To Invest In The 21st Century One important implication of Investment Reductionism is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, banks and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer better value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, currency effects, and step changes in sector valuations, we offer some strong advice on how to sequence the investment process: 1. Make your asset class decision at a global level. This is because asset classes tend to move as global entities, not regional entities. And also because at a global level, asset class valuation comparisons are less distorted by sector and currency effects. 2. Make your sector decisions. Given that the companies that dominate European (and all major) indexes are multinationals, the sector decision should be based on the direction of the global economy. 3. Make your currency decisions. 4. You do not need to make any more major decisions! The main regional equity allocation, country allocation and value/growth allocation just drop out from the sector and currency decision. With the global 6-month credit impulse now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase (Chart I-12), the classically cyclical sectors are likely to continue underperforming for the next few months; the rise in bond yields faces resistance; and the euro - at least on a trade-weighted basis - has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. Chart I-12The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Finally, in terms of regional equity allocation, Investment Reductionism implies a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* In addition to the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, fractal analysis finds that the outperformance of Oil and Gas relative to other commodity equities is technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to underweight euro area Oil and Gas versus global Basic Materials. Set a profit target of 5%, with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long USD/ZAR hit its 6% profit target, and is now closed. This leaves us with five open positions. 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-13 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 Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Feature Chart of the WeekAg Vol Will Rise Over the coming three months markets will be zeroing in on spring planting in the U.S., looking for deviations from the USDA's March intentions report. This will occur against the cyclical backdrop of increased volatility, as markets attempt to price the real impact of Chinese tariffs (Chart of the Week). Putting aside fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions will be a headwind to ag prices this year. Longer term, despite the more favorable USD outlook, a slowdown in China, which accounts for ~ 20% of global food demand, could be bearish for ag prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. crude oil output rose to a record 10.3mm b/d in February according to the U.S. EIA. U.S. crude production exceeded Saudi Arabia's in 1Q18; we expect it to exceed Russia's output of 11.2mm b/d by December, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. Permanent waivers on steel and aluminum tariffs were granted to Australian, Argentine, and Brazilian imports by U.S. firms, while exemptions on imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico were extended to June 1. Precious Metals: Neutral. USD strength is weighing on gold and silver: Our long positions on both metals are down 3.0% and 6.2%, respectively, over the past two weeks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Ag market volatility will increase, as markets assess U.S. spring planting progress against a backdrop of a possible trade war in ags between the U.S. and China (see below). Feature All Eyes On U.S. Planting Progress It is a busy time of year for U.S. farmers as spring planting is underway. Based on the USDA's annual Prospective Planting Report, released end-March, corn and soybean plantings will fall 2% y/y and 1% y/y, respectively. If realized, corn planted area in the 2018/19 crop year will be the lowest since 2015, and, for only the second time in the history of the series, will fall behind soybean acreage (Chart 2). The USDA's survey also indicates U.S. corn and soybeans will lose ground to wheat, where farmers intend to expand acreage by 3%. Even so, wheat planting intentions are the second lowest on record since the beginning of the series in 1919, surpassed only by last year's all-time low. Mother Nature is not co-operating either: unseasonably cold and wet weather is hindering planting this spring (Table 1). Planting of corn and spring wheat are significantly behind average for this time of the year. Similarly, heading of winter wheat - which accounts for ~ 70% of total wheat intentions - is also behind schedule. Furthermore, harsh winter weather reduced the condition of almost 40% of the crop to poor or very poor, with only 33% qualifying as good or excellent, compared to last year's assessment of 13% and 54%, respectively. Chart 2U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 Table 1U.S. Farmers Are Behind Schedule Weather-related delays are less of a risk for soybean plantings, which begin and end later in the summer. Progress is currently in line with historical averages, and, since farmers have an additional month of planting compared to corn and wheat, it is possible they will opt to switch their unplanted corn and wheat acreage to beans. This is a downside risk to the soybean market: When all is said and done, June soybean acreage may exceed targets indicated in the USDA's March intentions report. Although farmers' current lack of headway on the fields is cause for concern, it is still possible that farmers will be able to catch up, attaining their targeted acreage. A Backdrop Of Falling Inventories The termination of China's corn stockpiling scheme, which, prior to 2016 led to the rapid buildup of domestic inventories, was accompanied by policies designed to incentivize soybean plantings over corn. In the case of corn, these policies have paid off. By the end of the current crop year we expect the drawdown in Chinese inventories - along with U.S. stockpiles - to drag world corn reserves lower for the first time since 2010/11 (Chart 3).1 China's pro-soybean production policy is expected to yield a 1.1% expansion in the oilseed's planting area, leading to a 12.8% increase in output this crop year. Regardless, domestic inventories expressed in stocks-to-use (STU) terms are projected to fall (Chart 4). Similarly, world soybean reserves will contract on the back of a decline in Argentine output, which will lead to the largest - and one of only three on record - soybean deficits in the domestic market. In the case of wheat, although U.S. output is forecast to come down this year, weighing on domestic inventories, global markets remain well supplied (Chart 5). In fact, even though USDA's monthly revisions to U.S. production have been downward, forecasts of total use also were revised down. This means the net impact on the balance will be a wider-than-expected surplus. In the case of global markets, world wheat STU ratio will increase to levels last seen in 1986. Net, despite unfavorable weather weighing on the quality and quantity of U.S. wheat crops, there is no shortage of wheat in the world, unlike corn and soybeans. Chart 3Corn Deficit Eating##BR##Away At Stockpiles Chart 4China STU Falls Despite##BR##Pro-Soybean Policies Chart 5Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied##BR##Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Bottom Line: Given the slower-than-average planting progress this year, near term prices will likely reflect developments in the U.S., as farmers rush to get the crops in the ground. While winter wheat appears to be of poor quality this year, corn and spring wheat plantings are significantly behind schedule. This raises the risk that their acreages will be abandoned in favor of soybeans, which has a later planting window. All in all, if the June acreage report aligns with farmers' planting intentions, we expect to see an increase in wheat acreage at the expense of corn and soybean, which will provide some supply relief to domestic wheat markets. U.S. Farmers Less Competitive, Especially In Soybean Markets In theory, China's announced plans to levy duties on U.S. ag imports puts U.S. farmers - part of President Trump's base - at a disadvantage. But, reality may not be as bearish. The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. will be able to ramp up its exports to other markets amid declining imports from the top bean consumer. Given the impact of weather on soybean output in Argentina - where drought cut soybean output by 30% y/y - there will be a void in global supply. Since soybeans are fungible, we expect ex-China demand to remain supported on the back of limited global supply. This will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to export its surplus, at least in this crop year. To date, there appears to be some evidence of this. Domestic supply will be insufficient to cover Argentinian consumption this year (Chart 6). In an unusual move, USDA export sales data shows Argentina booked a 240k MT purchase of U.S. soybeans for delivery in the next marketing year. Argentina traditionally is a net exporter of soybeans. While we expect tariffs to reshuffle trade flows as China attempts to ensure supplies while avoiding U.S. soybeans, the net effect in terms of global demand for U.S. soybeans may not be as bearish as is feared. China simply does not have the domestic supply to satisfy its demands for beans. While opting for Brazilian or Argentinian beans may be way around importing U.S. supplies, this will open up other export opportunities for the U.S. variety, leading to a simple restructuring of trade flows.2 Recent declines in Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans amid growing imports from Brazil have been cited as evidence of a gloomy future for U.S. soybean farmers. However, this phenomenon is part of the Chinese import cycle: Brazilian soybeans flood Chinese markets in the second and third quarters, while American supplies flow in during the last and first quarters of any given year (Chart 7). Furthermore, U.S. soybean imports have been on the downtrend since the middle of last year. Thus, this observation alone does not signal a change in trend. Chart 6Weak Argentine Output##BR##Restrict Global Supplies Chart 7Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans##BR##Typical For This Time Of Year In fact, the premium paid for Brazilian beans over those traded in Chicago spiked earlier last month. Although it has since come down slightly, it suggests Chinese consumers will have to bear the brunt of more expensive imports. Furthermore, this makes U.S. beans relatively cheaper - and more attractive - in the global market. All the same, higher costs may entice Chinese consumers to look at adjusting the feed formula by diversifying the source of feed. Although our baseline scenario is that these tariffs will remain in place, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lightizer's trip to Beijing may be the opening salvo to less hostile trade developments. If this is the case, we would expect these trade-related risks to ease. Bottom Line: Tariffs on U.S. soybean imports to China are, in theory, bearish for U.S. markets. However, China's reliance on these beans, along with a tight market this year, makes the outlook less gloomy. Courses of action that may be pursued by China are (1) diversifying the source of the bean, (2) reducing demand for the bean by adjusting feed formula, and (3) continuing to raise domestic soybean acreage. Given the cyclical nature of China's soybean imports, we are entering a period of naturally low demand for U.S. soybeans. Thus, we will not likely see the real impact of current trade disputes until China's demand for American beans kicks in again in 4Q18. In the meantime, a global deficit will open up alternative opportunities for U.S. exports. U.S. And Foreign Financial Conditions Drive Long Run Outlook As weather and the on-going trade tensions between the U.S. and China evolve, the U.S. financial backdrop - particularly real interest rates and the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) - will remain crucial to ag markets. In line with BCA Research's House View, we expect Fed rate hikes to exceed those of other central banks, providing support to a stronger USD over the next 12 months. This will weigh on ag prices.3 Chinese economic growth also could figure prominently, based on recent research from the CME Group, which operates the world's benchmark grain futures markets.4 The relationship between China's unofficial economic gauge - the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) - and ag prices appear to operate through the currency channel. A weaker Chinese economy - reflected in the LKI - suppresses industrial commodity demand, which ends up weighing on the currencies of major commodity exporters. This means the local costs of production for these exporters fall, which, with a 1- to 2-year lag, incentivizes crop plantings in these regions. The increased supply at the margin is bearish for ag prices, all else equal. Given the current environment of a slowing Chinese economy, this relationship is relevant to the longer-term outlook. The significance of the LKI in our grains models provides some evidence of this relationship (Chart 8). When applying the analysis to Brazilian and Russian ag markets, we find the LKI to be positively correlated with the Brazilian Real and the Russian Ruble. This, in turn, explains the inverse correlation we find between the LKI and future ag production in these two markets (Chart 9). A weaker domestic currency does appear to entice farmers to increase plantings of ag commodities, allowing them to take advantage of greater local currency profits from USD-denominated ag exports. Chart 8China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... Chart 9...By Incentivizing Production Bottom Line: This preliminary analysis uncovers a supply side channel through which China may impact global ag supplies. It implies that a slowing Chinese economy may in effect spur greater global ag supplies, eventually weighing down on ag prices. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Despite the increase in domestic supply amid greater offerings of state reserves, much of the state corn stocks are reportedly in poor condition, only suitable as a source for ethanol production - cited as the justification for upward revisions to corn consumption this year. As such, imports will likely remain indispensable. Overall it appears that China intends to raise its industrial consumption of corn in order to digest its stockpiles, with limited impact on prices. Late last year, China announced its target of nationwide use of bioethanol gasoline by 2020. It estimates that corn stockpiles are sufficient to meet near term demand for the grain used as the ingredient in E10, and hopes to achieve a physical corn market balance within five years. 2 Please see the Ags/Softs back section titled "Can China Retaliate With Agriculture," in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 For a more detailed discussion of the impact of U.S. financial variables on ag markets, please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018," dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Will A Sino-U.S. Trade War Impact Grain, Meat Markets?" dated March 28, 2018, available at cmegroup.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Our constraints-based methodology does not rely on human intelligence or the "rumor mill" to analyze political risks; Yet insights from our travels across the U.S., including inside the Beltway, offer interesting background information and a sense of the general pulse; Anecdotal information suggests that Trump is not "normalizing" in office; that U.S.-China relations will get worse before they get better; and that Trump will walk away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Stick to our current trades: energy over industrial metals; South Korean bull steepener; long DXY; long DM equities versus EM; long JPY/EUR; short Chinese tech stocks and U.S. S&P500 China-exposed stocks. Feature With the third inter-Korean summit demonstrating our view that "diplomacy is on track,"1 we remind investors of the key geopolitical risks we have been emphasizing - souring U.S.-China relations and rising geopolitical risks over Iran's role in the Middle East.2 We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy do not base our analysis on information from human "intelligence" sources. No private enterprise can obtain the volume of intelligence that would make the sample statistically significant. Private political analysts relying on such intelligence are at best using flawed reasoning devoid of an analytical framework, and at worst are hucksters. Government intelligence agencies obviously collect a wide swath of not only human but also electronic and signals intelligence. Their sample can be statistically significant. However, the cost of such an effort is prohibitive to the private sector. Nonetheless, we may use human intelligence for background information, insight into how to improve our framework, and to take the subjective pulse of any particular situation. The latter is sometimes the most useful. It is not what a policymaker says that matters so much as how they say it, or the fact that they mention the subject at all. Given that we live in an era of political paradigm shifts, and that "charismatic leadership" is rising in influence relative to more predictable, established institutions and systems,3 we have decided to do something we have not done in the past: share some insights from our recent trips to Washington, DC and elsewhere in the U.S. Caveat emptor: the rumor mill is often wildly misleading, which is why we do not base our research on it. Exhibit A: Donald Trump's tax cuts, which our constraints-based methodology enabled us to predict in spite of the prognostications of in-the-know people throughout the year.4 Trump Is Not Normalizing U.S. domestic politics is the top concern of investors, policymakers, and policy wonks almost everywhere we go. It routinely ranks above concerns about Russia, China, the Middle East, or emerging markets (EM). We frequently heard that the U.S. is entering a period of political turmoil worse than anything since President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Some old Washington hands even claim that the Trump era will cause even greater uncertainty than the Nixon era did because Congress is allegedly less willing to keep the president in check. Economic policy uncertainty, based on newspaper word count, is at least comparable today to the tumultuous 1973-74 period, which culminated with Nixon's resignation in August 1974, and is trending upward (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump Uncertainty Approaching Nixon Levels? Of course, there is a big difference between Trump's and Nixon's context: today the economy is not going through a recession but rip-roaring ahead, charged with Trump's tax cuts and a bipartisan spending splurge. And the nation is not in the midst of a large-scale and deeply divisive war (not yet, anyway). There is little chance of major new legislation this year, yet deregulation, particularly financial deregulation, will continue to pad corporate earnings and grease the wheels of the economy. The booming economy is lifting Trump's approval ratings, which are trying to converge to the average of previous presidents at this stage in their terms (Chart 2). This development poses the single biggest risk to the unanimous opinion in DC that Republicans face a "Blue Wave" (Democratic Party sweep) in the midterm elections on November 6. However, a key support of the "Blue Wave" theory is that Republicans are split among themselves - and no one in the Washington swamp will deny it. Pro-business, establishment Republicans have never trusted Trump. They are retiring in droves rather than face up to either populist challengers in the Republican primary elections this summer or enthusiastic "anti-Trump" Democrats and independents in the general election (Chart 3).5 Chart 2Is Trump's Stimulus Bump Over? Chart 3GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Trump is expected to ignite a constitutional crisis by firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Republicans are widely against firing Mueller, but they are not united in legislating against it, leaving Trump unconstrained. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) says he will not allow consideration on the Senate floor of a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would protect Mueller from firing.6 If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats expect a political earthquake. Some think that mass protests, and mass counter-protests encouraged by Trump himself, will culminate in violence. (We would expect protests to be mostly limited to activists, but obviously violent incidents are probable at mass rallies with opposing sides.) The Democrats are widely expected to take the House of Representatives; most observers are on the fence about the Senate. The House is enough to impeach Trump, which is widely expected to occur, by hook or by crook. But the impact on the country's political polarization will be much worse if there is impeachment without "smoking gun" evidence against Trump's person. Nixon, recall, refused to hand over evidence (the Watergate tapes) under a court order. When he handed some tapes over, they emitted a suspicious buzzing sound at critical points in the recording. Public opinion turned against him, prompting his party to abandon ship. He resigned because the loss of party support made him unlikely to survive impeachment. By contrast, there is not yet any comparable missing or doctored evidence in Trump's case, nor any sinkhole in Republican opinion that would presage a 67-vote conviction in the Senate (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Not Yet In Nixon's Shoes Still, clouds are on the horizon. When people raise concerns about geopolitical issues - the U.S.-Russia confrontation, or the potential for a trade war with China - their starting point is uncertainty about President Donald Trump and his administration's policies. The United States is seen as the chief source of political risk in the world. Bottom Line: People in the Beltway who were once willing to believe that Trump would learn on the job and become "normalized" in office now seem to be shifting to the view that he is truly an unorthodox, and potentially reckless, president. The New (Aggressive) Consensus On China China is in the air like never before in D.C. In policy circles, the striking thing is the near unanimity of the disenchantment with China. Republicans are angry with China over trade and national security. Democrats are not to be outdone, having long been angry with China over trade, and also labor issues and human rights violations. It seems that everyone in the government and bureaucracy, liberal or conservative, is either demanding a tougher policy on China or resigned to its inevitability. American officials flatly reject the view that the Trump administration is instigating a conflict with China that destabilizes the world economy. Rather they insist that China has already instigated the conflict and caused destabilizing global imbalances through its mercantilist policies. They firmly believe that the U.S. can and should disrupt the status quo in order to change China's behavior, but that no one wants a trade war. They believe that the U.S. can be aggressive without causing things to spiral out of control. This could be a problem, as we detect a similar hardening of sentiment in China. On our travels there, the attitude was one of defiance toward Trump and Washington. We have received assurances that Beijing will not simply fold, no matter how much pain is incurred from trade measures. Of course, it is in China's interest to bluster in order to deter the U.S. from tariffs. But Chinese policymakers may be ready to sustain greater damage than Washington or the investment community expects. Tech companies are particularly out of the loop with Washington. They are said to have been unprepared for the president's actions upon receiving the Section 301 investigation results. They may also be underestimating the product list that the U.S. Trade Representative has drawn up pursuant to Section 301.7 Even products on that list that are not imported directly from China could have their trade disrupted. While China is demanding that the U.S. ease restrictions on high-tech exports, to reduce the trade imbalance (Chart 5), the U.S. believes that export controls allow for plenty of waivers and exceptions. They do not see export controls as a major risk. Chart 5U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Rather, they see rising U.S. restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. as the real risk. The U.S. wants reciprocity in investment as well as trade. The emphasis lies on fair and equal access, which will require massive compromises from China, given its practice of walling off "strategic" sectors (including aviation, energy, electricity, shipping, and communications) from foreign interests. China's recent pledges to allow foreigners majority stakes in financial companies may not be enough to pacify the U.S. negotiators, especially if the promises hinge on long-term implementation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will cause a stir when he releases his guidelines for investment restrictions, as expected by May 21 under the president's declaration on the Section 301 probe (Table 1).8 Both the House of Representatives and Senate are expected, within a couple of months, to pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R, TX) and Representative Robert Pittenger (R, NC). This bill would grant greater powers to the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in conducting investigations into foreign investment deals with national security ramifications. Under the new law CFIUS will be able to review proposed investment deals on grounds that go beyond a strict reading of national security. They will now include economic security, and potential sectoral impacts as well as individual corporate impacts, and previously neglected issues like intellectual property.9 Trump is unlikely to veto the bill, as previous presidents have done when laws cracking down on China have passed Congress, given his desire to shake up the China relationship. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Will CFIUS enforcement truly intensify? Treasury's actions may preempt the bill, and CFIUS has already been subjecting China to greater scrutiny for years (Chart 6). Moreover, American presidents have always canceled investment deals if CFIUS advised against them.10 Presumably broadening CFIUS's powers will result in a wider range of deals struck down. The government already stopped Broadcom, a Singaporean company, from taking over the U.S. firm Qualcomm, in March, for reasons that have more to do with R&D and competitiveness (economic security) than with any military applications of its technologies (national security). Separately, U.S. policy elites are starting to turn their sights toward China's global propaganda and psychological operations. The scandal over the Communist Party's subversive institutional and political influence in Australia has heightened concerns in other Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, countries.11 This is a new trend that will have bigger implications going forward in Western civil society and the business community, with state efforts to create firewalls against Chinese state intrusion exacerbating political and trade tensions. Australians have the most favorable view of China in the West, and on the whole they continue to see China in a positive light. However, this view will likely sour this year. The recent attempt by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pass legislation guarding against Communist Party interference in Australian politics has already led to a series of diplomatic incidents, including tensions over the South China Sea and Pacific Islands. These can get worse in the near future. Consistently, over 40% of Australians view China as "likely" to become a military threat over the next 20 years (Chart 7), and this number will worsen if attempts to safeguard democratic institutions from state-backed influence operations cause China to retaliate with punitive measures toward Australia. China is offering some concessions to counteract the new, aggressive consensus in Washington. Enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea was the big turn. But it is also allowing the RMB to appreciate against the USD (Chart 8), which is an issue close to Trump's heart. The change in temperature in Washington can be measured by the fact that these concessions seem to be taken for granted while the discussion moves onto other demands like trade and investment reciprocity. Chart 6U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment Chart 7Australian Fears About China To Rise Chart 8Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Simultaneously, China is courting Europe. European policymakers say that they share U.S. concerns about China's trade practices but wish to resolve disputes through the World Trade Organization and reject unilateral American actions or aggressive punitive measures that could harm global stability. Meanwhile China hopes that American policy toward Iran and the Middle East will alienate the Europeans while distracting Washington from formulating a coherent pivot to Asia. Bottom Line: Investors are underestimating the potential for a full-blown trade war. Policymakers - in China as well as the U.S. - have greater appetite for confrontation. Iran: Reversing Obama's Legacy The financial news media continue to underrate the importance of geopolitical risk tied to Iran this year (Chart 9). Our sense is that the Trump administration, when in doubt, is still biased towards reversing Obama-era policy on any given issue. Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 appears to be no exception. Chart 9Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Signs have emerged for months that Trump is likely to refuse to waive Iranian sanctions (Table 2) when the renewal comes due on May 12. He has fired his national security adviser and secretary of state, as well as lesser officials, in preference for Iran hawks.12 French President Emmanuel Macron, having tried to convince Trump to retain the deal on his recent state visit to Washington, is apparently convinced Trump will scrap it.13 Table 2U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Moreover, discussions of Iran mark the one exception to the hardening consensus on China. A number of people we spoke with were not convinced that the Trump administration will truly devote the main thrust of its foreign policy to countering China. Some believed U.S. voters did not have the stomach for a trade fight that would affect their pocketbooks. Others believed that the Trump administration would simply revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy, accepting a "quick win" on China trade while pursuing a confrontational military posture in the Persian Gulf. Still others believed that Trump has unique reasons, such as political weakness at home and the desire to be respected abroad, for wanting to be in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman against Iran. All agreed that while a shift to China makes strategic sense, it may not overrule Republican policy preferences or inertia. The stakes are high. Allowing sanctions to snap back into place would affect a substantial portion of the one million barrels per day of oil that Iran has brought onto global markets since sanctions were eased in January 2016 (Chart 10). Chart 10Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability As BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy notes, global oil supply is tight and the critical driver - emerging market demand - remains strong. Meanwhile the "OPEC 2.0" cartel plans to extend production cuts throughout 2018 and likely into 2019, further draining global inventories. Inventories are now on track to fall beneath their 2010-14 average level by next year. In this context, the geopolitical risk premium will add to upside oil price risks this year. Our commodity strategists still expect oil prices to average $70-$74 per barrel this year (WTI and Brent respectively), but they can see it shooting above $80 per barrel on occasion, and warn that even small supply disruptions (whether from Iran, Venezuela, Libya, or elsewhere) could send prices even higher (Chart 11).14 Chart 11Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into /Barrel Range If the U.S. re-imposes sanctions on Iran, we doubt that the full one million barrels per day of post-sanctions Iranian production will be taken offline. Global compliance with sanctions will be ineffective this time around. The Trump administration's sanctions will not have the legitimacy or buy-in that the Obama administration's sanctions did. Trump may even intend to impose the sanctions for domestic political consumption while giving Europe, Japan, and others a free pass. Still, the geopolitical and production impact will be significant. As for oil, price overshoots are even more likely when one considers Venezuela, where our oil analysts estimate that state collapse will remove around 500,000 barrel per day from last year's average by the end of this year.15 Bottom Line: We continue to expect energy commodities to outperform metals in an environment where energy prices benefit from a rising geopolitical risk premium, while metals could suffer from ongoing risks to Chinese growth. Investment Conclusions Independently of the above anecdotes, Geopolitical Strategy has laid out a case urging clients to sell in May and go away.16 Last year we were confident recommending that clients forget this old adage because we had clarity on the geopolitical risks and their constraints. This year, with both China and Iran, we lack that clarity. The U.S.'s European allies could perhaps convince Trump to maintain the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, and Trump could perhaps accept China's concessions (such as they are) to get a "quick win" on the trade front before the midterm elections. But we have no basis for assessing that he will do either with any degree of conviction. How long will it take to resolve the raft of outstanding U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China tensions? Our uncertainty here gives us a high conviction view that this summer will be turbulent. Geopolitical tensions will likely get worse before they get better. We would reiterate our recommendation that clients be long DXY and hold a "geopolitical protector portfolio" of Swiss bonds and gold. We remain long developed market equities relative to emerging markets and long JPY/EUR. We are also maintaining our shorts on Chinese tech stocks and U.S. stocks exposed to China. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Jordain Carney, "McConnell: Senate won't take up Mueller protection bill," April 17, 2018, available at thehill.com. 7 Please see U.S. Trade Representative, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," and "USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President's Additional Section 301 Action," dated April 3 and April 5, 2018, available at ustr.gov. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Senator Jon Cornyn, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017," dated Nov. 8, 2017, available at www.congress.gov. For the argument behind the bill, see Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, "FIRRMA Act will give Committee on Foreign Investment a needed update," The Hill, dated March 21, 2018, available at thehill.com. 10 Please see Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, "CFIUS In 2017: A Momentous Year," 2018, available at www.wsgr.com. 11 Australian Senator Sam Dastyari (Labor Party) resigned on December 11, 2017 after it was exposed that he accepted cash donations from a Chinese property developer that he used to repay his own debts. He had also supported China's position in the South China Sea. The scandal prompted revelations of a range of Chinese state-linked political donations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced legislation banning foreign political donations and forcing lobbyists for foreign countries to register. 12 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, John Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff John Kelly has been sidelined; Bolton has appointed Mira Ricardel as his deputy, who has been said to clash with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in trying to staff the Pentagon with Trump loyalists. Please see Niall Stanage, "The Memo: Nationalists gain upper hand in Trump's White House," The Hill, April 25, 2018, available at thehill.com. 13 Macron has presented a framework that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May have accepted that would call for improvements to outstanding issues with Iran while keeping the 2015 deal intact. Macron has also spoken with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about retaining the deal while addressing the Trump administration's grievances. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," dated April 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see footnote 14, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform than the market, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight Taiwan within Greater China bourses. Feature Chart 1Ex-Tech Stocks Edging Closer##BR##To A Breakdown Vs Global Chinese ex-technology stock prices edged closer to a technical breakdown in April (Chart 1), as ongoing concerns about the impact of a trade war with the U.S. weighed further on investor sentiment. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared particularly poorly, as President Xi's pledge to open up the auto sector (which is negative for the market share of domestic firms) underscores that car producers are facing a losing scenario even if a further escalation in trade tension with the U.S. is avoided. Panel 2 of Chart 1 shows that recent decline has brought consumer discretionary stocks back to early-2017 levels relative to the broad market. The selloff in the consumer discretionary sector has significantly benefitted one of China Investment Strategy's open trades: long investable consumer staples / short investable consumer discretionary, initiated on November 16. The trade had already been outperforming prior to Xi's pledge in response to the original basis that we articulated (negative impact on autos from environmental reforms), but the news of a likely deterioration in market share has helped the trade earn a whopping 20% in less than 6 months. We recommend that investors stick with the call for now, until greater clarity emerges about the ultimate impact of trade negotiations with the U.S. But we have also recommended that investors place Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch for Q2 (while maintaining an overweight stance versus global equities), and that technical measures should be watched closely to determine whether a downgrade is indeed warranted. Within this framework, the recent deterioration in performance is worrying, raising the question of whether it is time for investors to reduce their exposure to ex-tech shares. Stay Overweight, For Now... Three factors point to "no" as the answer: Chart 2A Pro-Cyclical Allocation Is Consistent##BR##With A China Overweight Despite the weakness of Chinese stock prices over the past few weeks, they have not yet broken down technically: Chart 1 highlighted that their relative performance versus global stocks remains above its 200-day moving average. For now, this is consistent with a worsening in sentiment rather than full-fledged expectations of a sharp deterioration in equity fundamentals. Investors are clearly reacting to the negative potential effect of trade protectionism on ex-tech earnings, the ultimate impact of which remains subject to negotiation. We singled out consumer discretionary stocks as being likely to fare poorly under any realistic trade outcome, but the decline in Chinese relative performance since mid-April has occurred across all sectors, suggesting that a reversal may occur outside of the discretionary sector if a trade deal is struck with the U.S. Talks in China between high level U.S. and Chinese officials tomorrow and Friday are a hopeful sign that a relatively beneficial deal for both sides may be possible, suggesting that it is too early to cut exposure. Over a 1-year time horizon, BCA continues to recommend that investors remain overweight global equities within an overall balanced portfolio. We have highlighted in previous reports that the Chinese investable stock market is now a decidedly high-beta equity market versus the global benchmark (even in ex-tech terms),1 meaning that an overweight stance is justified barring a significantly negative alpha. Since Chart 2 illustrates that Chinese ex-tech stocks have in fact generated a modestly positive alpha over the past year, a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance continues to favor an above-benchmark weight to Chinese equities ex-technology. For now, our investment recommendations remain unchanged: investors should stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector over the coming 6-12 months. But as highlighted below, the risks to China are clearly to the downside, which supports our decision to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2. This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S./China trade dispute as well as the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Bottom Line: Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. ...But The Risks Are To The Downside Table 1 updates our macro data monitor that we have published in a few previous reports. The monitor tracks the data series that we found to have the most reliable leading properties when predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI),2 which we have defined as the most relevant proxy of China's business cycle. Table 1No Convincing Signs Of An##BR##Impending Upturn In China's Economy Chart 3Lower Inventories =##BR##A Rise In Housing Construction? The table now shows a March datapoint for all of the series that we track, and continues to argue that the trend in Chinese industrial activity is down. In particular, it appears to confirm that the elevated January/February levels in Bloomberg's calculation of the LKI were likely noise, and not a signal of an impending uptrend. The table highlights that none of the components of our leading indicator for the LKI are above their 12-month moving average, and 5 out of the 6 components fell in March. While the April update of the Caixin manufacturing PMI is being released as we go to press, the official manufacturing PMI also fell in April. On the housing front, floor space sold, one of the most important leading indicators for residential construction activity in China, has also decelerated over the past two months. In last week's joint Special Report with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, my colleague Ellen JingYuan He noted that steel prices are at risk not only because of a likely increase in supply, but from weaker demand due to a potential slowdown in the property market. BCA's China Investment Strategy service has actually taken a cautiously optimistic stance towards the housing market, and noted in an early-February report that there were a few signs of a pickup in activity.3 Chart 3 presents the most hopeful case, which is that the multi-year downtrend in residential construction relative to sales may be over given the significant reduction in housing inventories that has occurred over the past two years. Still, the level of inventories remains quite elevated by conventional standards, and it is difficult to see growth in residential construction sustainably rise if floor space sold remains weak, as it has been for the past two months. Given the recent evolution of the important macro data from China, our view is that the downside risk to the industrial sector should be clear to most investors. However, the potential for monetary policy easing and the extent of the tailwind for China from global growth remain two areas where we see more downside risk than some in the market. On the policy front, China's recent cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) was greeted by some analysts as a sign of easing monetary policy, with others pointing to the recent decline in government bond yields as a clear sign that China's monetary policy is about to become less restrictive. However, we explained in a recent Special Report why the 3-month repo rate is currently the de-facto policy rate,4 and Chart 4 highlights that it appears to lead yields at the short-end. The recent tick down in the latter appears to be a delayed response to the sharp decline in the former, which preceded the RRR cut. Specifically, the repo rate slide was triggered by news reports in late-March that the deadline for new rules to be imposed on China's asset management industry would be extended, which is consistent with our argument that roughly 3/4ths of the tightening in monetary policy that has occurred since late-2016 has actually been regulatory/macro-prudential in nature. Given that the 3-month repo rate has since rebounded back to its post-2017 average following the announcement, we see no indication of any intension by the PBOC to ease monetary policy. Concerning trade, while the threat to China's export growth from U.S. protectionism is obvious, some investors have argued that global demand may be strong enough to overwhelm this negative effect and that it will buoy Chinese export growth (and, by extension, imports). This line of reasoning has a strong basis; Chart 5 shows that our BCA Global LEI is forecasting solid industrial production (IP) growth over the coming few months, and we have noted in past reports that there is a strong link between global IP and Chinese export growth. Chart 4No Convincing Signs Of Monetary Easing Chart 5Global Demand Likely To Remain Solid But Chart 6 presents a problem with this argument, which is that China's reform pain threshold is very likely positively correlated with global growth. In short, BCA has written extensively about how China has embarked on a multi-year reform effort that will likely weigh on growth in its early stages. We have made it clear that the pace of these reform efforts is likely to be responsive to the pace of economic growth (i.e. policymakers will set the pace to avoid a major growth slowdown), but the other side of this coin is that policymakers are likely to take advantage of a stronger export sector by increasing the pace of reforms. So while some investors view the external sector of China's economy as having some potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector if major protectionist action can be avoided, our sense is that ramped up reform efforts will offset and possibly overwhelm this positive factor, were it to occur. As a final point, in the context of Chart 6, material easing in either policy rates or the pace of reform efforts may occur over the coming 6-12 months, but it would likely be in response to a more serious slowdown in the economy than we are currently observing. As we noted in our April 18 Weekly Report,5 the possibility that Chinese authorities will need to stimulate the economy over the coming year is interesting because it raises the prospect of another economic mini-cycle in China, potentially leading to another meaningful acceleration. But the economic and financial market circumstances that would precede such an event are unlikely to be happy ones for investors, raising the risk of a serious selloff in China-related assets before policy eases sufficiently to return to an overweight stance. Chart 6If Demand For Chinese Exports Stays Strong,##BR##Reform Efforts Will Intensify Bottom Line: Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk than many investors from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. An Update On Taiwanese Equities We last wrote about Taiwanese stocks in our December 14 Weekly Report,6 and argued that investors stick with our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China trade and our underweight stance towards Taiwan vs Greater China bourses, despite extended technical conditions. Our recommendation was based on the argument that Taiwanese tech sector underperformance had been driven by material strength in the trade-weighted Taiwanese dollar (TWD), and that a lasting depreciation in the currency would be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating. Since our report in December, the relative performance of Taiwanese stocks has been volatile. After a period of underperformance versus Greater China stock prices, Taiwanese stocks then rose sharply in relative terms from late-February to early-April. The magnitude of the rise was sufficiently large to cause the relative price index to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7). However, Taiwanese relative performance has reversed course over the past month, retracing over half of the February to April surge. Chart 8 highlights that these confusing moves in Taiwanese stock prices versus Greater China have largely reflected passive outperformance in two sectors: tech sector outperformance versus China, and banking industry group outperformance versus global banks. On the tech front, Chinese tech stocks have been under pressure over the past month due to the tech-focused nature of U.S. import tariffs, and global investors appear to believe that Taiwanese tech stocks would not be as impacted by these tariffs as their Chinese peers. We disagree, as the export intensity of Taiwan's tech sector to China is quite high: exports to China account for 15% of Taiwan's GDP, and electronic components (i.e. semiconductors) account for nearly half of exports to China. This suggests that the tariff impact on Taiwan's tech sector will be sizeable even if it is indirect. Chart 7A Volatile Relative##BR##Performance Trend Chart 8Tech And Banks Have Driven Recent##BR##Developments In Relative Performance On the banking front, Chart 9 highlights that the outperformance of Taiwanese banks versus their global peers has occurred due to a failure of the former to selloff with the latter over the past few months. Global banks appear to be reacting to the recent flattening in the global yield curve caused by a rise at the short-end, whereas there is no sign of upcoming monetary policy tightening in Taiwan and Taiwanese banks have historically been low-beta versus their global peers (Chart 10). Chart 9Taiwanese Banks Have Passively##BR##Outperformed Global Banks Chart 10Continued Bank Outperformance Not##BR##Likely Barring A Decline In Global Equities We doubt that Taiwan's banks will continue to outperform global banks over the coming 6-12 months without a generalized selloff in global stock prices. As we noted earlier, BCA's house view is overweight global equities (and financials) over the cyclical horizon on the basis of still-strong global growth, stimulative U.S. fiscal policy, and the view that global monetary policy will not reach restrictive territory over the coming year. As such, we are inclined to lean against the recent outperformance of Taiwanese banks and, by extension, the trend in ex-tech relative performance. Bottom Line: Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight within Greater China bourses. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market," published January 11, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," published November 30, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?," published February 8, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," published February 22, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Question That Won't Go Away," published April 18, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst," published December 14, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Bond Bear Market: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below target, and this gives us high conviction that Treasury yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. If we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is approximately 3%, then the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will likely occur between 3.35% and 3.52%. Interest Sensitive Spending: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond Yields & Gold: A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. Feature Chart 1The Bear Is Back After a brief pause in March, the cyclical bond bear market has resumed. The 10-year Treasury yield even briefly broke above 3% last week, with its 27 basis point rise off the early-April lows evenly split between the compensation for inflation protection and the 10-year real yield (Chart 1). To mark the occasion of the 10-year Treasury yield breaking above 3% for the first time since early 2014, this week we update our roadmap for the Two-Stage Cyclical Bond Bear Market, which we first outlined in late February.1 Specifically, we consider the questions of where the 10-year Treasury yield might be by the end of this year, and where it might ultimately peak for the cycle. On the second question we think bond investors can glean important information from trends in the price of gold. Tracking The Two-Stage Bear Market In our report from February we described how the cyclical Treasury bear market will proceed in two stages. The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Stage 1: The Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sit at 2.17% and 2.25%, respectively. Historically, when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target, both of those breakeven rates have traded in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 2). This means that nominal Treasury yields still have room to rise as the market prices in a more realistic outlook for inflation. That could happen sooner rather than later. Core PCE inflation increased 0.15% in March, causing the 12-month rate of change to jump from 1.57% to 1.88% (Chart 2, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the annualized 3-month and 6-month rates of change remain well above the Fed's 2% target. Looking further out, we see inflationary pressures continuing to build in the U.S. economy. The employment data now clearly show very little slack in the labor market, and this appears to be finally filtering through to wages. The Employment Cost Index for Wages & Salaries rose 0.9% in the first quarter, its largest quarterly increase since 2007. The year-over-year growth rate in the index moved up to 2.7%, from 2.6% in Q4, and is right in line with its predicted value based on the prime age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 3).2 Chart 2Stage 1 Almost Complete Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Ahead As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below our target range we have high conviction that Treasury yields will increase, driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Once our TIPS breakeven target is met, the cyclical bond bear market will transition to stage two. Stage 2: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate After inflation expectations are re-anchored around the Fed's target, the most important question for bond investors becomes: How high will the Fed need to lift the policy rate to keep inflation from moving well above target? Or alternatively: What is the terminal (or peak) fed funds rate for this cycle (see Box)? Box: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate & The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Please note that in this report we refer to two separate, though related, concepts. We define the terminal fed funds rate as the peak fed funds rate for the business cycle. We also define the equilibrium fed funds rate as the fed funds rate that is consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive monetary policy. The terminal fed funds rate is almost certainly higher than the equilibrium fed funds rate because monetary policy will likely turn restrictive before the end of the economic cycle. Chart 4Treasury Yield Models We can show why this question is so important using a simple model of Treasury yields based on expectations for changes in the fed funds rate and the MOVE index of implied rate volatility. The latter is a proxy for the term premium embedded in Treasury yields (Chart 4). For example, if we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate - the rate consistent with neither accommodative nor restrictive monetary policy - is approximately 3%, and that by the end of this year the yield curve will price in a return to neutral monetary policy by the end of 2019. That would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.03% and 3.19% by the end of this year, assuming also that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. This result can be seen in Table 1 by looking at the rows consistent with three rate hikes in 2018 and a 12-month discounter of 75 bps by year end. We could also assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is 3%, but that the market will start to price in a restrictive monetary policy by the end of 2019 - i.e. a fed funds rate above its equilibrium level. That result would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.35% and 3.52% by the end of this year, once again assuming that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. The bottom line is that with TIPS breakeven inflation rates still below target, we have high conviction that yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. Beyond that, if we assume that a 3% fed funds rate is roughly consistent with a neutral monetary policy stance, then we should expect the cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield to be in a range between 3.35% and 3.52%. Tracking The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Using Nominal GDP And Gold It's worth pointing out that both examples in the prior section assumed that the MOVE index will either stay flat or decline. The reason for that assumption is that both examples assume a relatively low equilibrium fed funds rate of 3%. In other words, both examples assume that monetary policy will turn restrictive once the fed funds rate moves above 3%, causing economic growth to slow. If that assumption proves to be correct, and with the 10-year Treasury yield already close to 3%, the yield curve will undoubtedly flatten as the fed funds rate is raised. A flatter yield curve is highly correlated with lower implied rate volatility. In order for implied rate volatility to move meaningfully higher, and for us to see a much higher 10-year Treasury yield (as is shown in the bottom third of Table 1), the market will need to start discounting a higher equilibrium fed funds rate. Put differently, investors would have to believe that the fed funds rate necessary to slow economic growth and inflation is much higher than 3%. It is only in that scenario that the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will significantly exceed the 3.35% to 3.52% range posited in the prior section. Table 1Treasury Yield Projections Under Different Scenarios But how can we decide whether or not the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher than 3%? One imperfect way is to simply track economic growth and look for signs that it is about to slow. Cyclical Nominal GDP Growth Chart 5 shows that one good signal of a recession is when nominal GDP growth falls below the fed funds rate. While this is a fairly reliable recession indicator, it is not always a good method for determining when monetary policy turns restrictive. For example, prior to the last recession nominal GDP growth started to wane when it was still far above the level of the fed funds rate. If we had been waiting for the fed funds rate to exceed nominal GDP growth we would have missed the inflection point toward slower growth. The method worked better prior to the 1990 recession when the fed funds rate was lifted above the pace of nominal GDP growth while the latter was still accelerating. That configuration gave a much clearer real-time signal of restrictive monetary policy. Chart 5Cyclical Spending Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative A more refined version of this approach is to track only the cyclical sectors of the economy - those sectors that are most sensitive to interest rates. Growth in those sectors - consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment for equipment and software - tends to deteriorate prior to major downturns in overall nominal GDP (Chart 5, bottom panel). This method gives us a slightly earlier warning that monetary policy has turned restrictive. On that note, we observe that while cyclical spending as a percent of overall GDP is still in an uptrend, its rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters (Chart 6). This is mostly due to somewhat weaker consumer spending on durables. But we doubt that cyclical spending is in danger of rolling over any time soon. Chart 7 shows that the fundamentals underpinning the key cyclical sectors of the economy remain robust: Consumer sentiment is elevated compared to history, and income growth has started to move higher (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will be helped along by recently enacted tax cuts during the next few months. New orders for core durable goods already display solid growth, and survey indicators give no signal of imminent deterioration (Chart 7, panel 2). On residential investment, homebuilder confidence is near historical highs (Chart 7, panel 3), while mortgage purchase applications so far seem immune from the effects of higher interest rates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Cyclical Spending Still Rising... Chart 7...And Fundamentals Remain Sound At the moment, this analysis tells us that monetary policy is probably still accommodative. Once the cyclical sectors of the economy start to slow, that will give us a signal that monetary policy is restrictive and that we are probably near the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Inflation, Uncertainty And The Price Of Gold But is there another method we can use to track the equilibrium fed funds rate and the stance of monetary policy in real time? We think there is, and it relates to investors' perceptions of inflationary pressures in the economy. First, we recognize that when inflationary pressures are higher, the equilibrium fed funds rate is also higher. In other words, the Fed needs to lift rates further before monetary policy becomes restrictive and inflation starts to flag. This intuition is confirmed by the historical relationship between long-run inflation forecasts and the short-term interest rate (Chart 8). More interestingly, we also observe that uncertainty about the long-run inflation forecast is positively related to implied interest rate volatility, the slope of the yield curve and the price of gold (Chart 9). Once again, this is intuitive. If investors are more uncertain about the long-run inflation outlook they will demand a greater risk premium to bear inflation risk in the long-run, thus driving long-dated bond yields higher. Chart 8Inflation Forecasts &##br## Interest Rates Chart 9Inflation Uncertainty Drives##br## The Term Premium The gold price is positively correlated with inflation uncertainty because gold is in many ways the "anti-Fed" asset. Since it is perceived to be a long-run store of value, investors will bid up the gold price whenever there is a heightened risk that the Fed might "fall behind the curve" allowing inflation to overshoot its target. Conversely, the gold price tends to fall when the perception is that the Fed is "ahead of the curve" and is maintaining an overly restrictive monetary policy. Chart 10Gold Has Led The Fed This is why bond investors would be wise to heed the signal from gold. A sharply rising gold price signals that the fed funds rate is running further below its equilibrium level. This could occur because the Fed is cutting rates to levels that the market deems too low. Or, it could occur because the market now believes that the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher. A sharply falling gold price gives the exact opposite signal. It tells us that either the Fed is lifting the funds rate too far above equilibrium, or that the market is revising down its assessment of the equilibrium rate. This chain of events played out before our eyes during the past few years. The gold price started to fall sharply in early 2013, and continued its decline until late 2015 (Chart 10). A signal that investors were discounting a more restrictive monetary policy stance during that timeframe. But the Fed was not lifting rates during that period. In fact, with hindsight it now seems obvious that the gold price was falling because the market was revising down its assessment of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Investors should also note that the falling gold price signaled a lower equilibrium fed funds rate well before the Fed started to revise down its median forecast for the interest rate that is expected to prevail in the "longer run".3 Tracking the price of gold would have given us a much timelier signal than waiting for the Fed. Chart 10 also shows that the gold price has rebounded since early 2016, but has been confined to a trading range during the past few months. Not coincidentally, this rebound has coincided with the Fed ceasing the downward revisions to its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Going forward, we think that bond investors would be wise to closely track the price of gold. A significant move higher in the gold price would be a strong signal that the Fed is not tightening policy quickly enough to contain inflationary pressures. In other words, it would signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate should be revised higher. This would drive up implied interest rate volatility, apply steepening pressure to the yield curve, and lead to a higher end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield. Bottom Line: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond investors should also track the price of gold. A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 208, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In a recent report we showed that nonfarm payrolls need to increase by 110k or more per month to drive the prime age employment-to-population rate higher, leading to faster wage growth. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Review", dated April 10, 018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The Fed's projection of the interest rate expected to prevail in the "longer run" is essentially its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Does the 3% level on Treasuries matter to investors? The 2/10 yield curve is typically much steeper when global growth is strong and pro-growth policies are in place. The imperfect inter-relationship between labor market slack, wages and inflation. Feature In last week's report1 we noted that the risk of weakness in equity markets was elevated in the near term. Risks assets balked as the 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 3% early last week. However, easing tensions on the Korean peninsula and another stronger than expected batch of Q1 earnings reports boosted U.S. equity prices later in the week. We will provide a full update on the Q1 earnings season in next week's report. Investors are getting used to a seasonal dip in Q1 U.S. GDP data, and last Friday's release certainly fits the bill. A recent study by the staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland2 suggests that the main culprits in this seasonal anomaly are in the private investment and government consumption components of GDP. Output in both categories slowed significantly in Q1 2018. Consumer spending growth exhibited the most significant slow-down, growing at only 1.1% compared to 4% in the prior quarter. But growth in investment spending on equipment also declined sharply, from 11.6% to 4.7%, as did growth in residential investment, from 12.8% to 0% (Chart 1). The latter is due to the sharply accelerating input costs (e.g. lumber prices) faced by homebuilders at the moment. Federal government spending slowed to a 1.7% rate in Q1 from 3.2% in Q4 2017. Chart 1GDP Growth Remains Below Average, But Above Fed's Long Run Target At 2.9% year-over-year in Q1 2018, real economic growth was above the Fed's view of potential GDP (1.8%) for the fifth consecutive quarter. Given the recent seasonal pattern and the substantial fiscal stimulus coming on stream, the Fed will likely see through the weaker Q1 growth data for the time being. Chart 2Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level On TIPS Breakevens BCA's view is that the 3% level on the 10-Year Treasury yield is not an impediment to higher equity prices. The 10-year yield and U.S. equity prices climbed together in the 1950s. The rise in yields in the '50s primarily reflected better economic growth rather than fears of inflation. The run-up in yields since the lows last year reflect both factors (Chart 2). Nonetheless, investors are concerned that higher yields will flip the positive correlation between bond yields and stock prices. Charts 3 and 4 shows the link between the level of both nominal (Chart 3) and real bond yields and equity prices. The implication is that the relationship between stock prices and bond yields tends to stay positive when the nominal bond yield is below 5%. Furthermore, the correlation between real yields and stock prices remains positive (Chart 4). Moreover, since 1980, a move from 2% to 3% on the 10-year Treasury yield has been accompanied by an average gain of 1.2% in the S&P 500, with a median move of 1.8%.3 On average, the S&P 500 posted a modest decline (24 bps) as the 10-year Treasury elevated from 3% to 4%, but the median return (98 bps) was still positive. Our July 2015 Special Report4 explored the impact of rates and inflation on equity prices. Historically, even the move from 4% to 5% on the 10-year is not an impediment to higher stock prices. Chart 3Stock To Bond Correlations Remain Positive With Nominal Yields Below 5% Chart 4Both Equities And Real Bond Yields Reflect Growth Bottom Line: BCA's stance is that the stock-to-bond ratio will climb this year. Our U.S. Bond Strategy team pegs fair value on the 10-year at 2.78%, but notes that the yield may peak this cycle at between 3.25% and 3.50%.5 BCA's base case remains that U.S. equities will not be subject to an over-aggressive Fed until at least mid-2019 and that increasing bond yields are not a threat. Yield Curve Dynamics Does BCA's stance on the yield curve change our upbeat view on risk assets beyond the next few months of caution?6 In March,7 we discussed 5 episodes in the past 35 years when global growth surged and fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies were aligned to boost the U.S. economy. The current episode of synchronized policy commenced in January 2016. Risk assets perform well when these policy tailwinds are in place, but these assets tend to struggle for 12 months after the tailwinds abate. Although global growth has peaked,8 we expect the era of pro-growth policies to end next year as the Fed raises rates into restrictive territory. BCA expects the 2/10 curve to remain around 50bps until the inflation breakevens are re-anchored between 2.3% and 2.5% as upward pressure on the short end from Fed rate hikes is offset by the upward thrust of the breakevens on the long end.9 The curve should resume its flattening trend after that, but will not invert this year. The 2/10 curve stands at 45 bps as of April 27, 2018. Chart 5 shows that the curve has spent very little time in the 0-50 range in the past 35 years when fiscal, monetary and regulatory factors were aligned and global growth was positive. A steeper curve (50 to 100 bps) developed alongside a pro-growth policy and solid global growth only once in the past 35 years, over 1983 and 1984, and never when the 2/10 curve was between 0 and 100 bps (not shown). Chart 5The 2/10 Curve Is Usually This Steep When Pro-Growth Policies Are In Place Bottom Line: The backdrop of accommodative fiscal and monetary policy, attended by easing regulatory policy and positive global growth, will continue to provide a tailwind for risk assets through next year. However, the 2/10 yield curve is typically much steeper when these policies are all aligned. Thus, investors should continue to favor equities over bonds and remain underweight duration over the cyclical horizon with a tactical cautious stance over the next few months. The Wage Puzzle Chart 6Economy At Full Employment, Theoretically The move higher in the 10-year Treasury yield to 3% for the first time since 2013 (and the 2-year Treasury to 2.5% for the first time since 2008) has diverted attention to the Fed and inflation. Core CPI is now at the Fed's 2% target and the market is concerned that inflation will shoot past 2% and quickly escalate to 3%. BCA's view is that inflation will remain at the Fed's target this year, but drift above that goal in 2019, which would elicit a more aggressive response from the central bank. Tighter monetary policy will ultimately end the expansion in early 2020.10 Until then, the markets will focus on the drivers of inflation, including wages. Our work11 notes that inflation is slow to turn higher in long expansions. The U.S. economy reached full employment in late 2016 (Chart 6). In short- and medium-length expansions, it takes only a few months before inflation turns up. However, in long expansions (1960s, 1980s, and 1990s) prices did not turn meaningfully higher until 26 months after the economy reached full employment. This suggests that a more significant hike in inflation - led by a tighter labor market - is close and supports the recent rise in Treasury yields. There is mixed evidence that view is warranted. Wage inflation has moved higher in recent months, but the link between wages and prices has weakened. Chart 7 shows that before 1985, the correlation between wage growth and prices was above 90%. Since 1984, the relationship has waned. The post-1985 correlation is just under 30%. BCA expects this weaker relationship to persist. Chart 7Link Between Wage Inflation And Consumer Inflation Changed After 1985 The disconnect between labor market tightness and wages has recently widened. Chart 8 shows several measures of wage pressures and labor market slack. Historically, less slack translates into higher wages, but the relationship in this cycle has been muted. Moreover, pay gains for workers who switch jobs are running well ahead of those who stay in their current positions and are either promoted or given merit raises (Chart 9). The gap between compensation gains of job switchers and job stayers tends to broaden as the business cycle ages and slack in the labor market shrinks. Chart 8A Wide Disconnect Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Gains Chart 9Job Switchers Seeing Better Raises Demographics and wage rigidity dynamics are also at play. Chart 10 shows that the labor force participation rate is headed lower due to demographics, but recent trends suggest there may be improvements in the coming years. BCA's view is that the participation rate will be flat in the next 12 months and move lower in the coming decade. Chart 10Decline In Labor Force Participation Is Mostly Demographics Wage inflation is an early career phenomenon. Recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York12 shows that across all education cohorts, rapid real wage growth occurs early in a worker's career, with positive real wage growth ending in his/her forties. This is followed by a period of flat to declining real wages. By age 55, all education categories experience negative real wage growth, on average (Chart 11). Chart 11Wage Inflation Is An Early Career Phenomenon Wage rigidity in this cycle suggests that there will be an upward correction in labor compensation. Chart 12 shows that 14.5% of workers did not have wage increases in 2017. Moreover, 18.9% of hourly workers and 9.2% of non-hourly workers saw no increase in pay in the year ending in December 2017 (Chart 13, top panel.) The bottom panel of Chart 13 shows that more than 20% of workers with less than a high school education received no pay increases in the past year; only 10% of college-educated workers experienced the same end. It is important to note that on balance, measures of wage rigidity have increased over time and are not overly sensitive to the business cycle. Chart 12More Than 14% Of Workers Didn't See A Raise In 2017 Chart 13Wage Rigidity By Type Of Employee Bottom Line: BCA recommends that investors monitor a broad range of inflation indicators. Historical evidence suggests that when the labor market tightens, inflation eventually accelerates. However, wages do not always lead inflation at bottoms and maybe a lagging indicator in this cycle.13 In long economic cycles (1980s and 1990s), wage inflation was a lagging indicator. Most of these indicators show that inflation pressures are building, but only gradually. We expect the Fed to raise rates gradually in the next 12 months, but it may turn more aggressive in 2019 as pressures on inflation, driven in part by a tighter labor market, begin to mount. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Short-Term Caution Warranted," published April 23, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201706-lingering-residual-seasonality-in-gdp-growth.aspx 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Yellen's Last Week," published February 5, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Stock-To-Bond Correlation: When Will Good News Be Bad News?", published July 6, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", January 16, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Short-Term Caution Warranted," published April 23, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Line Up", March 12, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Peril?", April 9, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", April 17, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000", published March 30 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12 FRBNY: Liberty Street Economics, "U.S. Real Wage Growth: Slowing Down With Age," September 28, 2016. 13 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst, September 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle, are the key pillars of our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The current macro backdrop is unforgiving for defensive insurance stocks. Leading indicators of pricing power warn that softening prices coupled with expanding headcount will weigh on insurance profits in the coming quarters. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities moved laterally last week and continued to consolidate the early-February tremor, unimpressed by better than expected profit growth across the board. The SPX has been oscillating in a 10% range over the past three months and has been a trader's (and bank's) paradise. There are high odds that this trading range will stay in place and the market will churn until the summer before breaking out (Chart 1). Chart 1Breakout Looming? Nevertheless, the anemic equity market response to solid earnings is slightly unnerving. Soft EPS guidance and perky input cost inflation are two thorny issues revealed this earnings season. With that in mind, we have identified three key brewing equity market headwinds: EPS growth deceleration toward 10%. Rising interest rates. U.S. dollar reflex rebound. Chart 2Monitoring The Correlation 20% profit growth is this cycle's peak rate, and we have been flagging in recent research1 that, beneath the surface, investors are slowly starting to revise expectations lower toward the 10% growth projection for calendar 2019 EPS. Simultaneously, interest rates continue their ascent and may cause some consternation in stocks. Not only does a higher discount rate weigh on valuations, but also the Fed's tightening cycle will eventually slam the brakes on the economy, with housing and the consumer feeling the higher interest rate knock-on effects most intensely. As we highlighted recently,2 we are closely monitoring the correlation between stocks and the 10-year Treasury yield and looking out for a collapse into negative territory to signal an economic (and market) choke point (Chart 2). Finally, recent ECB and BoJ chatter of easy monetary policies for as far as the eye can see, may have put a floor on the greenback, at least temporarily, with the Fed going it alone and lifting the fed funds rate into 2019 and beyond. While all three headwinds suggest that the market may have trouble breaking out of its funk in the next few months, on a cyclical 9-12 month horizon we remain upbeat on equity return prospects. Any U.S. dollar advance is likely a bear market rally and will take time to filter negatively through to earnings. Rising interest rates are also a consequence of higher economic growth which is a positive, i.e. real rates are rising alongside inflation expectations. And, if the SPX attains 10% EPS growth in 2019 as we expect, that is an above trend EPS growth rate and twice as high as nominal GDP growth, an impressive feat at this stage of the cycle. This week we are updating our SPX target to 3,200. We first came up with our SPX end-of-cycle target last July using three different methods:3 a traditional dividend discount model (DDM), EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and forward equilibrium equity risk premium (ERP) analysis. As a reminder, this 3,200 SPX level is a peak number before the next recession hits and Table 2 summarizes our updated results (if you would like to receive the excel spreadsheet with the three models so you can tweak our inputs/assumptions please click here). In our DDM, our discount rate assumptions remain intact and very conservative. We use an up-to-date annual dividend per share number and back out dividends in U.S. dollars via the updated SPX divisor and make a conservative assumption of no buybacks in the coming years. The recession-related 10% dividend cut has moved to 2020, in line with BCA's view. Finally, we rolled over our estimates to 2023 resulting in a roughly 3,200 SPX peak value estimate. Our EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis starting point is $191 EPS in 2020 (this is in line with the sell-side bottom up estimate according to IBES data) and a 16.5 multiple. That equates to an SPX ending value of near 3200. Table 2SPX Target Using Three Different Methods With regard to the ERP analysis (Chart 3), our forward ERP equilibrium remains at 200bps. 2020 EPS come in at $191, and we also pencil in 100bps selloff in the bond market, resulting in an SPX 3,200 estimate. Chart 3ERP Has Room To Fall This week we are updating a high-conviction overweight call in a deep cyclical index, and reiterate a below benchmark allocation in a financials sub-index. The CAT Is Roaring, Is The Market Listening? Early last October we upgraded the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck (CMHT) index to overweight, and two months later we added it to the high-conviction overweight call list. On January 29th, right after the broad market hit its all-time highs, we managed to book impressive 10% relative gains as we introduced a risk management tool and instituted trailing stops to the high-conviction calls that cleared the 10% relative return mark. Subsequently, we reinstated the S&P CMHT index to the high-conviction overweight call list, at a deflated price point, as our constructive cyclical backdrop never wavered. Currently, our thesis remains intact: reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle are a harbinger of sustained profit outperformance. While some leading indicators of global growth have recently crested, global output will remain brisk and above trend. When global growth is expanding, machinery demand typically demonstrates its high beta characteristics. Our global machinery exports proxy is firing on all cylinders rising to multi-year highs and sell side analysts have taken notice: S&P CMHT net earnings revisions are as good as they get (bottom panel, Chart 4). Encouragingly, the softening dollar suggests that U.S. exports have the upper hand and are grabbing market share. BCA's global machinery new orders proxy corroborates the trade data and underscores that machinery profits will overwhelm (middle panel, Chart 4). Dissecting global machinery demand is revealing. Importantly, previously moribund Chinese loan demand has reversed course and is now gaining traction. Tack on the recent steep fall in interest rates and factors are falling into place for a durable pick up in Chinese machinery consumption. Indeed, hypersensitive Chinese excavator sales continue to expand at a breakneck pace (Chart 5). Elsewhere in Asia, highly-cyclical Japanese machine tool orders likewise defy gravity vaulting to fresh all-time highs (Chart 5). The commodity complex also confirms the enticing global machinery end-demand backdrop. The broad commodity index in general and crude oil prices in particular have been reaccelerating of late. The energy space is a key end-customer for the machinery industry and $75/bbl global oil prices have reignited a fresh drilling cycle (Chart 6). Chart 4Global Machinery End-Demand Is Upbeat... Chart 5...And Asia Is Leading The Pack Chart 6Commodities Give The All Clear Sign Even the U.S. machinery demand backdrop is vibrant. The V-shaped recovery in U.S. machinery order books remains intact. Fiscal easing is reviving animal spirits and CEOs are voting with their feet: overall capital outlays are rising at a healthy clip, positively contributing to GDP growth, with machinery fixed capital formation growth recently clearing the 20%/annum hurdle (Chart 7). Capex intentions according to the regional Fed surveys are also holding near recent cyclical highs, and were Congress to pass an infrastructure bill that would be an additional boon to machinery top and bottom line growth (Chart 7). On the domestic operating front, machinery factories are humming and given that capacity is contracting, the industry is regaining its pricing power footing (Chart 8). The upshot is that this high-operating leverage industry should continue to enjoy outsized profit gains. Chart 7Even U.S. Machinery Demand Is Firming Chart 8Operating Metrics Flashing Green Nevertheless, there are two key risks to our otherwise bullish machinery thesis that we are closely monitoring. First, input costs are on the rise both in terms of labor and raw commodities (bottom panel, Chart 9). If the industry fails to pass this input cost inflation down the supply chain, then a margin squeeze is likely. Second, and most importantly, a hard landing in China would put our constructive machinery view offside, but we assign low odds to a gap down in Chinese economic activity (middle panel, Chart 9). Finally, given the recent consolidation phase, the S&P CMHT index has a valuation cushion as per the neutral reading in our relative valuation indicator. Similarly overbought conditions have been worked out and our technical indicator is also hovering near the neutral zone offering a compelling entry point to commit fresh capital (Chart 10). Chart 9Two Risks To Bullish View Chart 10Compelling Entry Point Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF - CAT, CMI, PCAR. Insurance Expiry Notice While we continue to recommend a core portfolio overweight in the S&P financials index via the banks (high-conviction), asset managers and investment banks sub-indexes, the S&P insurance index remains our sole underweight. Unlike its financials brethren, the insurance industry is defensive rather than cyclical and thrives when the economy is slowing. Fairly stable, recurring and, most of the time, predictable revenue streams are sought after attributes when economic growth is scarce. Currently, the U.S. and global economies are expanding above trend, the global capex upcycle is running at full steam and CEOs and consumers alike exude confidence. Under such a backdrop, investors have historically avoided insurance equities. Chart 11 drives this point home. Over the past four decades the greenback and relative share prices have been positively correlated. The U.S. dollar peaked in December 2016 and since then it has been goosing global output, and simultaneously weighing on insurance stocks. Similarly, a rising 10-year Treasury yield reflecting improving economic growth also anchors insurance stocks (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 12). While higher interest rates are positive for investment portfolio income, they also imply mark-to-market losses on bond portfolios. Higher interest rates also incent insurers to underwrite at a faster pace with more lenient standards, which is often a precursor to increased competition and diminishing pricing power, eventually sapping profits. Chart 11Insurance Is Defensive Chart 12Higher Yields Hurt More Than Help On the pricing front, there seems to be a bifurcated market. Auto insurance pricing is hardening, but home insurance is moving in the opposite direction (Chart 13). The slingshot recovery in auto loans versus residential real estate loans partially explains the big delta in pricing as subprime auto loans excesses have, at the margin, boosted new and used vehicle sales. This is not sustainable and there are high odds that this extra demand will level off in the coming months as the subprime auto credit screws inevitably tighten, eventually dampening car insurance prices. Worrisomely, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that not only is demand for auto loans waning, but also bankers are no longer willing extenders of auto related credit. Taken together, momentum in housing and auto sales is nil, warning that insurance top line growth will trail the broad market (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, relative consumer outlays on insurance remain moribund, and a far cry from the previous cyclical peak, warning that it is premature to expect a valuation re-rating (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 13Margin Trouble? Chart 14Softening Demand Chart 15Insurance Indicator Message: Shy Away With regard to input costs, insurance labor additions continue unabated, trumping overall non-farm payrolls and the broad financial services industry since the GFC trough. Our insurance wage bill proxy is closing in on 4%/annum (bottom panel, Chart 13), warning that a margin squeeze looms. Our Insurance Indicator does an excellent job encapsulating all of these different signals and has recently taken a turn for the worse (third panel, Chart 15), underscoring that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P insurance index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INSU - AIG, CB, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, AIZ, RE, BHF. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert)

Highlights Global equities are poised for a "blow-off" rally over the next 12-to-18 months. Long-term return prospects, however, are poor. The final innings of the 1991-2001 economic expansion saw a violent rotation in favor of value stocks and euro area equities. We expect history to repeat itself. After sagging by as much as 7% in the second half of 1998 and going nowhere in 1999, the dollar rose by 13% between January 2000 and February 2002. The greenback today is similarly ripe for a second wind. The correlation between the dollar and oil prices was fairly weak in the late 1990s. The correlation is likely to weaken again now that U.S. crude imports have fallen by about 70% from their 2006 highs thanks to the shale boom. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 6.79% in January 2000. Thus far, there is scant evidence that the recent increase in bond yields is having a major effect on either U.S. capital spending or housing demand. This suggests yields can go higher before they enter restrictive territory. Feature Learning From The Past The theme of this year's BCA annual Investment Conference - which will be held in Toronto in September and will feature a keynote address by Janet L. Yellen - is, appropriately enough, entitled "Investing In A Late-Cycle Economy."1 In the spirit of our conference, this week's report looks back at the market environment at the tail end of the 1991-2001 expansion in order to distill some lessons for today. The mid-to-late 1990s was a tale of contrasts. The U.S. was thriving, spurred on by accelerating productivity growth, falling inflation, and a massive corporate capex boom. Southern Europe was also doing well, aided by falling interest rates and optimism about the coming introduction of the euro. On the flipside, Germany - dubbed by many pundits at the time as the sick man of Europe - was still coping with the hangover from reunification. Japan was mired in deflation. Emerging markets were melting down, starting with the Mexican peso crisis in late 1994, followed by the Asian crisis, and finally the Russian default. In the financial world, the following points are worth highlighting (Chart 1): Chart 1AFinancial Markets In The Late 1990s (I) Chart 1BFinancial Markets In The Late 1990s (II) Russia's default and the implosion of Long-term Capital Management (LTCM) led to a gut-wrenching 22% decline in the S&P 500 in the late summer and early fall of 1998. This was followed by a colossal 68% blow-off rally over the subsequent 18 months. The collapse of LTCM marked the low point for EM assets for the cycle. The combination of cheap currencies, rising commodity prices, and a newfound resolve to enact structural reforms paved the way for a major EM boom over the following decade. The VIX and credit spreads trended upwards during the late 1990s, even as U.S. stocks climbed higher. Rising equity volatility and wider spreads were partly a reaction to problems abroad. However, they also reflected the deterioration in U.S. corporate health and heightened fears that stock market valuations had reached unsustainable levels. The U.S. stock market peaked in March 2000. However, that was only because the tech bubble burst. Outside of the technology sector, the S&P 500 actually increased by 9.2% between March 2000 and May 2001. Value stocks finally began to outperform growth stocks in 2000, joining small caps, which had begun to outperform a year earlier. European equities also surged towards the end of the bull market, outpacing the U.S. by 34% in local-currency terms and 21% in dollar terms between July 1999 and March 2000. The strong U.S. economy during the late 1990s ushered in a prolonged period of dollar appreciation that lasted until February 2002. That said, the greenback did not rise in a straight line. The dollar fell by as much as 7% in the second half of 1998 as the Fed cut rates in response to the LTCM crisis. It went sideways in 1999 before resuming its upward trend in early 2000. The correlation between the dollar and oil prices was much weaker in the 1990s compared to the first 15 years of the new millennium. After falling from a high of 6.98% in April 1997 to 4.16% in October 1998, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose to 6.79% in January 2000. The Fed would keep raising rates until May of that year. The recession began in March 2001. Now And Then Just as in the tail end of the 1990s expansion, the global economy is doing reasonably well these days. Growth has cooled over the past few months, but should remain comfortably above trend for the remainder of the year. After struggling in 2014-16, Emerging Markets are on the mend, thanks in part to the rebound in commodity prices. During the 1990s cycle, the U.S. was the first major economy to reach full employment. The same is true today. The headline unemployment rate has fallen to 4.1%, just shy of the 2000 low of 3.8%. The share of the working-age population out of the labor market but wanting a job is back to pre-recession levels. The same goes for the share of unemployed workers who have quit - rather than lost - their jobs (Chart 2). One key difference concerns fiscal policy. The U.S. federal budget was in great shape in 2000. The same cannot be said today. Chart 3 shows that the fiscal deficit currently stands at 3.5% of GDP. The deficit is on track to deteriorate to 4.9% of GDP in 2021 even if growth remains strong. Federal government debt held by the public is also set to rise to 83.1% of GDP in 2021, up from 33.6% of GDP in 2000. Unlike in the past, the U.S. government will have less scope to ease fiscal policy when the next recession rolls around. Chart 2An Economy At Full Employment Chart 3The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Further Upside For Global Bond Yields Deleveraging headwinds, excess spare capacity, slow potential GDP growth, and chronically low inflation have all conspired to keep a lid on global bond yields. That is starting to change. Credit growth has accelerated, while output gaps have shrunk. The structural outlook for productivity growth is weaker than it was in the 1990s, but a cyclical pickup is likely given the recent recovery in capital spending. Chart 4 shows that there is a reasonably strong correlation between business capex and productivity growth. On the inflation side, the 3-month annualized change in U.S. core CPI and core PCE has reached 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively. The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing index hit a seven-year high in March. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge has zoomed to 3.1% (Chart 5). The market has been slow to price in the prospect of higher U.S. inflation (Chart 6). The TIPS 10-year breakeven rate is still roughly 20 bps below where it traded in the pre-recession period, even though the unemployment rate is lower now than at any point during that cycle. As long-term inflation expectations reset higher, bond yields will rise. Higher inflation expectations will also push up the term premium, which remains in negative territory. Chart 4Pickup In Capex Brightens ##br##The Cyclical Productivity Outlook Chart 5Inflation##br## Is Coming... Chart 6...Which Could Take ##br##Bond Yields Higher The upward pressure on yields could be amplified if the market revises up its assessment of the terminal real rate. Perhaps in a nod to what is to come, the Fed revised its terminal fed funds projection from 2.8% to 2.9% in the March 2018 Summary of Economic Projections. However, this is still well below the median estimate of 4.3% shown in the inaugural dot plot in January 2012. The U.S. Economy Is Not Yet Succumbing To Higher Rates For now, there is little evidence that higher rates are having a major negative effect on the economy. Business capital spending has decelerated recently, but that appears to be a global phenomenon. Capex has weakened even more in Japan, where yields have barely moved. In any case, the slowdown in U.S. investment spending has been fairly modest. Core capital goods orders disappointed in March, but are still up 7% year-over-year. Likewise, while our capex intention survey indicator has ticked lower, it remains well above its historic average. And despite elevated corporate debt levels, high-yield credit spreads are subdued and banks continue to ease lending standards for commercial and industrial loans (Chart 7). In the household realm, delinquency rates are rising and lending standards are tightening for auto and credit card loans. However, this has more to do with excessively strong lending growth over the preceding few years than with higher interest rates. Particularly in the case of credit card lending, even large movements in the fed funds rate tend to translate into only modest percent changes in debt service payments because of the large spreads that lenders charge on unsecured loans. The financial obligation ratio - a measure of the debt service burden for the average household - is rising but is still close to the lowest levels in three decades. Mortgage debt, which accounts for about two-thirds of all household credit, is near a 16-year low as a share of disposable income (Chart 8). As Ed Leamer perceptively argued in his 2007 Jackson Hole address entitled "Housing Is The Business Cycle," housing is the main avenue by which monetary policy affects the real economy.2 Similar to business capital spending, while the housing data has leveled off to some extent, it still looks pretty good: Building permits and housing starts continue to rise. New and existing home sales rebounded in March. Home prices have accelerated. The S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index saw its strongest month-over-month gain in February since 2005. The MBA Mortgage Applications Purchase Index is up 11% year-over-year. The percentage of households looking to buy a home in the next six months is at a cycle high. Homebuilder sentiment has dipped slightly, but it remains at rock-solid levels (Chart 9). Chart 7Capital Spending ##br##Still Quite Robust Chart 8Household Debt Load And Financial Obligations##br## Are At Pre-Housing Bubble Levels Chart 9The Housing Sector##br## Is Doing Fine Fixed-Income: Hedged Or Unhedged? Bond positioning is quite short, so a temporary dip in yields is probable. However, investors should expect bond yields to rise more than is currently discounted over the next 12 months. BCA's fixed income strategists favor cyclically underweighting the U.S., Canada, and core Europe, while overweighting Australia, the U.K., and Japan in currency-hedged terms. Table 1 shows that the hedged yield on U.S. 10-year Treasurys is only 20 bps in EUR terms, and 38 bps in yen terms. Table 1Global Bond Yields: Hedged And Unhedged The low level of hedged U.S. yields today means that Treasurys are unlikely to enjoy the same inflows as in the past from overseas investors. This could push yields higher than they otherwise would go. To gain the significant yield advantage that U.S. government debt now commands, investors would need to go long Treasurys on a currency-unhedged basis. For long-term investors, this is a tantalizing investment. The current spread between 30-year Treasurys and German bunds stands at 192 bps. The euro would have to appreciate to 2.15 against the dollar for buy-and-hold investors to lose money by going long Treasurys relative to bunds.3 Such an overshoot of the euro is unlikely to occur, especially since the structural problems haunting Europe are no less daunting than those facing the United States. A Pop In The Dollar? Admittedly, the near-term success of a strategy that buys Treasurys, currency-unhedged, will hinge on what happens to the dollar. As occurred at the turn of the millennium, the dollar could find a bid as the Fed is forced to raise rates more aggressively than the market is pricing in. In this regard, large-scale U.S. fiscal stimulus, while arguably bearish for the dollar over the long haul, could be bullish for the dollar in the near term. My colleague Jennifer Lacombe has observed that flows into U.S.-listed European equity ETFs, such as those offered by iShares (EZU) and Vanguard (VGK), have reliably led the euro-dollar exchange rate by about six months (Chart 10).4 Recent outflows from these funds augur poorly for the euro. Rising hedging costs could also prompt more investors to buy U.S. fixed-income assets currency-unhedged, which would raise the demand for dollars (Chart 11).5 Chart 10ETF Flows Point To Lower EUR/USD Chart 11The Dollar Could Bounce The Oil-Dollar Correlation May Be Weakening Investors are accustomed to thinking that the dollar tends to be inversely correlated with oil prices. That relationship has not always been in place. Brent bottomed at just over $9/bbl in December 1998. Crude prices tripled over the subsequent 20 months. The broad trade-weighted dollar actually rose by 5% over that period. The dollar has strengthened by 2.8% since hitting a low on September 8, 2017, while Brent has gained 37% over this period. This breakdown in the dollar-oil correlation harkens back to late 2016: Brent rose by 26% between the U.S. presidential election and the end of that year. The dollar appreciated by 4% during those months. We are not ready to abandon the view that a stronger dollar is generally bad news for oil prices. However, the relationship between the two variables seems to be fading. Chart 12 shows that the two-year rolling correlation coefficient of monthly returns for Brent crude and the broad trade-weighted dollar has weakened in recent years. Chart 12The Negative Dollar-Oil Correlation Has Weakened This is not too surprising. Thanks to the shale boom, U.S. oil imports have fallen by about 70% since 2006 (Chart 13). This has made the U.S. trade balance less sensitive to changes in oil prices. The recent surge in oil prices has also been strengthened by OPEC 2.0's decision to reduce the supply of crude hitting the market, ongoing turmoil in Venezuela, and the possibility that Iranian sanctions could take 0.3-0.8 million barrels a day off the market. A reduction in oil supply is bad for global growth at the margin. However, weaker global growth is good for the dollar (Chart 14). OPEC's production cuts also increase the scope for U.S. shale producers to gain global market share over the long haul, which should help the greenback. As such, while a modestly strong dollar over the remainder of the year will be a headwind for oil, it may not be a strong enough impediment to prevent Brent from rising another $6/bbl to reach $80/bbl, as per our commodity team's projections. Chart 13U.S. Oil Imports ##br##Have Collapsed Chart 14Slowing Global Growth Tends##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar The Outlook For Equities Following the script of the late 1990s, stock market volatility has risen this year, as investors have begun to fret about the durability of the nine year-old equity bull market. Valuations are not as extreme as they were in 2000, but they are far from cheap. The Shiller P/E for U.S. stocks stands at 31, consistent with total nominal returns of only 4% over the next decade (Chart 15). On a price-to-sales basis, U.S. stocks have surpassed their 2000 peak (Chart 16). Such a rich multiple to sales can be justified if profit margins stay elevated, but that is far from a sure thing. Yes, the composition of the stock market has shifted towards sectors such as technology, which have traditionally enjoyed high margins. The explosion of winner-take-all markets has also allowed the most successful companies to dominate the stock market indices, while second-tier companies get pushed to the sidelines (Chart 17). Chart 15Long-Term Investors, Take Note Chart 16U.S. Stocks Are Pricey Chart 17Only The Best Nevertheless, there continues to be a strong relationship between economy-wide profits and the ratio of selling prices-to-unit labor costs (Chart 18). The latest data suggest that U.S. wage growth has picked up in the first quarter (Table 2). Low-skilled workers, whose wages tend to be better correlated with economic slack than those of high-skilled workers, are finally seeing sizable gains. Chart 18U.S. Profit Margins Could Resume Mean-Reverting... Table 2...If Wage Growth Continues Accelerating Even if productivity growth accelerates, unit labor costs are likely to rise faster than prices, pushing profit margins for many companies lower. Bottom-up analysts expect annual EPS growth to average more than 15% over the next five years, a level of optimism not seen since 1998 (Chart 19). The bar for positive surprises on the earnings front is getting increasingly high. Go For Value Historically, stocks tend not to peak until about six months before the start of a recession. Given our expectation that the next recession will occur in 2020, global equities could still enjoy a blow-off rally after the current shakeout exhausts itself. But when the music stops, the stock market is heading for a mighty fall. Given today's lofty valuations and the uncertainty about the precise timing of the next recession, we would certainly not fault long-term investors for taking some money off the table. For those who feel compelled to stay fully invested, our advice is to shift allocations towards cheaper alternatives. Value stocks have massively underperformed growth stocks for the past 11 years (Chart 20). Today, value trades at a greater-than-normal discount to growth. Earnings revisions are moving in favor of value names. Just like at the turn of the millennium, it may be value's turn to shine. Chart 19The Bar For Positive Earnings Surprises Has Risen Chart 20Value Stocks: An Attractive Proposition Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For more information about our Investment Conference, please click here or contact your account manager. 2 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 3 To arrive at this number, we multiply the current exchange rate by the degree to which EUR/USD would have to strengthen, on average, every year for the next 30 years in order to nullify the carry advantage of holding Treasurys over bunds. Thus, 1.217*(1.0192)^30=2.15. Granted, investors expect inflation to be about 45 bps lower in the euro area than in the U.S. over the next three decades. However, this would only lift the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value of EUR/USD from its current level of 1.32 to 1.51. This would still leave the euro 42% overvalued. 4 Please see Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies?" dated April 18, 2018. 5 When a foreign investor buys U.S. bonds currency-hedged, this entails two transactions. First, the investor must purchase the bond, and second, the investor must sell the dollar forward (which is similar to shorting it). The former transaction increases the demand for dollars, while the latter increases the supply of dollars. Thus, as far as the value of the dollar is concerned, it is a wash. In contrast, if foreign investors buy bonds currency-unhedged, there is no offsetting increase in the supply of dollars, and hence the dollar will tend to strengthen. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades