Global

Highlights The 2018 outlook for both economic growth and corporate profits remains constructive for risk assets, although evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Some measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months. Nonetheless, the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend, suggesting that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown. The dip in early 2018 in the Global ZEW index likely reflected uncertainty over protectionist trade action. Economic growth in the major countries outside of the U.S. may have peaked, but will remain robust at least through this year. The potential for a trade war is a key risk facing investors. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy. That said, there are hopeful signs that the latest trade skirmish will not degenerate into a full-blown trade war and thereby cause lasting damage to risk assets. Stay overweight equities and corporate bonds. President Trump will announce on May 19 whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Stay long oil and related investments. The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated. EPS growth is peaking in Europe and Japan, but has a bit more upside in the U.S. later this year. Cross-country equity allocation is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. Rising U.S. corporate leverage is not an issue now, but could intensify the next downturn as ratings are slashed, defaults rise and banks tighten lending standards. The bond bear market remains intact, although the consolidation phase has further to run. By Q1 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below NAIRU. Policymakers will then try to nudge up the unemployment rate, but the odds of avoiding a recession are very low. Feature Investors are right to be concerned following the March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. The President is low in the polls and needs a victory of some sort heading into midterm elections. Getting tough on trade plays well with voters, and the President faces few constraints from Congress on this issue. Trump wants a raft of items from China, including opening up to foreign investment and a crackdown on intellectual theft. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy.1 That said, we do not expect the latest trade skirmish to degenerate into a full-blown trade war. First, China has already signaled it wants to avoid significant escalation. Beijing has offered several concessions, and its threat of retaliatory trade action has been measured so far. On the U.S. side, the fact that the Administration has decided to bring its case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that the Americans are willing to proceed through the normal trade-dispute channels. The bottom line is that, while we cannot rule out escalating trade action that causes meaningful damage to the equity market, it is more likely that the current round of tensions will be limited to brief flare-ups. Investors should monitor the extent of European involvement. If Europe joins the U.S. effort to force China to change its trade practices via the WTO, then China will have little choice but to give in without a major fight. In terms of other geopolitical risks, North Korea should move to the back burner for a while now that the regime has agreed to negotiations. Of greater near-term significance is May 19, when Trump will announce whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Oil prices would benefit if the May deadline for issuing waivers on Iran sanctions passes. Trade penalties against Iran would reduce its oil production and exports. The U.S. is also considering sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry. Moreover, Russia and Saudi Arabia are reportedly considering a deal to greatly extend their alliance to curb oil supply. While there are downside risks as well, our base case outlook sees the price of Brent reaching US$74 before year end. Global Growth: Some Mixed Signs Also facing investors this year is the risk that the recent softening in the economic data morphs into a serious growth scare. The 2018 outlook for both the economy and corporate profits remains constructive in our view, but evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Investors may begin to question recent upward revisions to the growth outlook for this year and next. Industrial production has softened and the manufacturing PMI has shifted lower in most of the advanced economies (Chart I-1). Bad weather in North America and Europe in early 2018 may be partly to blame, but Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have also softened. The Chinese economy is decelerating and we believe the growth risks are underappreciated. President Xi has cemented his power base and there has been a shift toward accelerated reform. Chinese leaders recognize that leverage in the system is a problem, and the regime is tightening policy on a multi-pronged basis. Structural reforms are positive for long-term growth, but are negative in the short term. The tightening in financial conditions is already evident in the Chinese PMI and the sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (although the latest reading shows an uptick; not shown). A hard landing is not our base case, but the risks are to the downside because the authorities will err on the side of tight policy and low growth. It is also disconcerting that some of our measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months, including capital goods imports and industrial production of capital goods (Chart I-2). Nonetheless, the fact that the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend suggests that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Consumer and business confidence continues to firm in the major economies. Chart I-1Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Chart I-2A Soft Spot For Capital Spending Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown (Chart I-3). BCA's Global LEI remains in an uptrend and its diffusion index is above the 50 line. In contrast, the global measure of the ZEW investor sentiment index plunged in March. We attribute the decline to the announcement of steel and aluminum tariffs and the subsequent market swoon, suggesting that the ZEW pullback will prove to be temporary. Turning to the U.S., retail sales disappointed in January and February, especially considering that taxpayers just received a sizable tax cut. Nonetheless, this probably reflects lagged effects and weather distortions. Our U.S. consumer spending indicator continues to strengthen as all of the components remain constructive outside of auto sales. Household balance sheets are the best that they have been since 2007; net worth is soaring and the aggregate debt-to-income ratio is close to the lowest level since the turn of the century (Chart I-4). Given robust employment growth and the tightest labor market in decades, there is little to hold U.S. consumer spending back. We expect that the tax cut effect on retail sales will be revealed in the coming months, helping to sustain the healthy backdrop for corporate profits. Chart I-3Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Chart I-4U.S. Consumers In Good Shape Global Margins Still Rising The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated (Chart I-5). Earnings-per-share surged in the early months of the year in both the U.S. and Japan, although they languished in the Eurozone according to IBES data (local currencies; not shown). Relative equity returns in local currency tend to follow relative shifts in 12-month forward EPS expectations over long periods, and bottom-up analysts have lifted their U.S. earnings figures in light of the fiscal stimulus (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Margins Still Rising Chart I-6EPS And Relative Equity Returns The key question is: can the U.S. market outperform again in 2018 now that the tax cuts have largely been priced in? One can make a compelling case either way. Growth: Global growth will remain robust for at least the next year, and the Eurozone and Japanese markets are more geared to global growth than is the U.S. However, the impressive fiscal stimulus in the pipeline means that economic growth momentum is likely to swing back toward the U.S. this year. GDP growth in Europe and Japan will remain above-trend, but it has probably peaked for the cycle in both economies. Valuation: Our composite measure of valuation suggests that Europe and Japan are on the cheap side relative to the U.S. based on our aggregate valuation indicator, which takes into consideration a wide variety of yardsticks (Chart I-7). That said, one of the reasons why European stocks are on the cheap side at the moment is that export-oriented German exporters are quite exposed to rising international tariffs. Earnings: Previous currency shifts will add to EPS growth in the U.S. in the first half of the year, but will be a drag in Europe and Japan (Chart I-8). However, these effects will wane through the year unless the dollar keeps falling. Indeed, we expect the dollar to firm modestly over the next year, favoring the European equity market at the margin. In contrast, we expect the yen to strengthen in the near term, which will trim Japanese EPS growth. Chart I-7Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial ##br##Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. Chart I-8Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Chart I-9 updates the forecast from our top-down earnings models. The incorporation of the fiscal stimulus lifted the U.S. EPS growth profile relative to our previous forecast. EPS growth is expected to peak at over 20% later this year (4-quarter moving total basis using S&P 500 data). Growth is expected to decelerate thereafter since we have factored in a modest margin squeeze as U.S. wage growth picks up. Narrowing margins are less of a risk in Europe. U.S. EPS growth should be above that of Europe in 2018, but will then fall to about the same pace in 2019. We expect Japanese profit growth to remain very strong this year and next, given Japan's highly pro-cyclical earnings sensitivity. However, this does not incorporate the risk of further yen strength. Earnings expectations will also matter. Twelve-month bottom-up expectations are higher than our U.S. forecast ('x' in Chart I-9 denotes 12-month forward EPS expectations). In contrast, expectations are roughly in line with our forecast for the European market. It will therefore be more difficult at the margin for U.S. earnings to surprise to the upside. Monetary Policy: The relative shift in monetary policies should favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. The FOMC will continue tightening, with risks still to the upside on rates in absolute terms and relative to the other two economies. Sector Performance: Sector skews should work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in Euro area bourses, while technology is the largest overweight in the U.S. We are constructive on the financial sector in both markets, but out-performance of the sector will favor the Eurozone broad market. Meanwhile, tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates, since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening. The Japanese market has a relatively high weighting in industrials and consumer discretionary. The market will benefit if the global mini capex boom continues, but this could be counteracted by softness in global auto sales and further yen strength. It is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. We continue to avoid the Japanese market for the near term because of the potential for additional yen gains. As for the equity sector call, investors should remain oriented toward cyclicals versus defensives. Our key themes of a synchronized global capex mini boom, rising bond yields and firm oil prices favor the industrials, energy and financial sectors. Chart I-10 highlights four indicators that support the cyclicals over defensives theme, the dollar and the business sales-to-inventories ratio. Telecom, consumer discretionary and homebuilders are underweight. Chart I-9Profit Forecast Chart I-10These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks We will be watching the indicators in Chart I-10 to time the shift to a more defensive equity sector allocation. Leverage And The Next Recession As the economic expansion enters the late stages, investors are focused on where leverage pressure points may lurk. Last month's Special Report on U.S. corporate vulnerability to higher interest rates and a recession raised some eyebrows. For our sample of 770 companies, we estimated how much interest coverage for the average company would decline under two scenarios: (1) interest rates rise by 100 basis points across the curve; and (2) interest rates rise by 100 basis points and there is a recession in which corporate profits fall by 25% peak to trough. Given all the client inquiries, we decided to delve deeper into the results. We were concerned that our sample of high-yield companies distorted the overall results because it includes many small firms and outliers. We are more comfortable with the results using only the investment-grade firms, shown in Chart I-11. The 'x' marks the interest rate shock and the 'o' marks the combined shock. Nonetheless, the main qualitative message is unchanged. The starting point for interest coverage is low, considering that interest rates are near the lowest levels on record and profits are extremely high relative to GDP. This is the result of an extended period of corporate releveraging on the back of low borrowing rates. Chart I-12 shows that the interest coverage ratio has declined even as profit margins have remained elevated. Normally the two move together through the cycle. Chart I-11Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Chart I-12The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The implication is that the next recession will see interest coverage fare worse than in previous recessions. Of course, there are many other financial ratios and statistics that the rating agencies employ, but our results suggest that downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Moreover, banks may tighten C&I lending standards earlier and more aggressively because they will also be finely attuned to the first hint of economic trouble given the leverage of the companies in their portfolio. Recovery rates may be particularly low in the next recession because the equity cushion has been squeezed via buybacks, which will intensify widening pressure in corporate spreads. Tighter lending standards would generate more corporate defaults, even wider spreads and a greater overall tightening in financial conditions. Corporate leverage could therefore intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. The good news is that we do not see any other major macro-economic imbalances, such as areas of overspending, that could turn a mild recession into a nasty one. As long as growth remains solid, the market and rating agencies will ignore the leverage issue. Indeed, ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart I-13). We remain overweight U.S. investment-grade and high-yield bonds within fixed-income portfolios for now. The European corporate sector is further behind in the leverage cycle (Chart I-14). Europe does not appear to be nearly as vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nonetheless, our European Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has deteriorated over the past couple of years due to some erosion in profit margins, debt coverage and the return on capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. CHM has improved in recent quarters because the favorable earnings backdrop has temporarily overwhelmed rising leverage (top panel of Chart I-14). For the short-term, at least, corporate health is moving in favor of the U.S. at the margin. Chart I-13Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Chart I-14Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. The implication is that, while we see trouble ahead for the U.S. corporate sector in the next economic downturn, in the short term we now favor the U.S. over Europe in the credit space. We are watching our Equity Scorecard, bank lending standards, the yield curve and our profit margin proxy in order to time our exit from both corporate bonds and equities (see last month's Overview section). We are also watching for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will get more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate. Powell Doesn't Rock The Boat The Fed took a measured approach when reacting to the fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The FOMC lifted rates in March and marginally raised the 'dot plot' for 2019 and 2020. Policymakers shaved the projection for unemployment to 3.6% by the end of 2019. This still appears too pessimistic, unless one assumes that the labor force participation rate will rise sharply. Table I-1 provides estimates for when the unemployment rate will reach 3½% based on different average monthly payrolls and participation rates. Our base case scenario, with 200k payrolls per month and a flat participation rate, sees the unemployment rate reaching 3½% by March 2019. Table I-1Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached The soft-ish February reports for consumer prices and average hourly earnings took some of the heat off the FOMC. Core CPI, for example, rose 'only' 0.2% from the month before. Still, when viewed on a 3-month rate-of-change basis, underlying inflation remains perky; the core CPI inflation rate increased from 2.8% in January to 3% in February (Chart I-15). Inflation in core services excluding medical care and shelter, as well as in core goods, have also surged on a 3-month basis. We expect the latter to continue to pressure overall inflation higher, following the upward trend in import prices. The recent downtrend in shelter inflation should also stabilize due to the falling rental vacancy rate. Chart I-15U.S. Inflation Is Perky Moreover, the NFIB survey of U.S. small businesses shows that the gap between the difficulties of finding qualified labor versus demand problems is close to record highs. The ISM manufacturing survey shows that companies are paying more for their inputs and experiencing delays with suppliers. This describes a late-cycle environment marked with rising inflationary pressures. We expect that core inflation will grind up to the 2% target by early next year. By the first quarter of 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below its estimate of the non-inflationary limit. Policymakers will then attempt a 'soft landing' in which they tighten policy enough to nudge up the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the Fed has never been able to generate a soft landing. Once unemployment starts to rise, the next recession soon follows. Our base case is that the next recession begins in 2020. Bond Bear In Hibernation For Now The bond market showed that it can still intimidate in February, but things have since calmed down as the U.S. mini inflation scare ebbed, some economic data disappointed and trade friction created additional macro uncertainty. Bearish sentiment and oversold technical conditions suggest that the consolidation period has longer to run. Nonetheless, unless inflation begins to trend lower, the fact that even the doves on the FOMC believe that the headwinds to growth have moderated places a floor under bond yields. Fair value for the 10-year Treasury is 2.90% based on our short-term model, but we expect it to reach the 3.3-3.5% range before the cycle is over. Both real yields and long-term inflation expectations have room to move higher. Private investors will also have to absorb US$680 billion worth of bonds this year from governments in the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and U.K., the first positive net flow since 2014 (see last month's Overview). Yields may have to fatten a little in order for the private sector to make room in their portfolios for that extra government supply. In the Eurozone, the net supply of government bonds available to the private sector will still be negative this year, even if the ECB tapers to zero in September as we expect. Some investors are concerned about a replay in the European bond markets of the Fed's 'taper tantrum' of 2013, when then-Chair Bernanke surprised markets with a tapering announcement. The ECB has learned from that mistake and has given several speeches recently highlighting that policymakers will be making full use of forward guidance to avoid "...premature expectations of a first rate rise."2 We think they will be successful in avoiding a similar tantrum, but the flow effect of waning bond purchases will still place some upward pressure on the term premium in Eurozone bonds (Chart I-16).3 Chart I-16ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium The bottom line is that monetary policy will undermine global bond prices in both the U.S. and Eurozone, but we expect U.S. yields to lead the way higher this year. Japanese bond prices will be constrained by the 10-year yield target. Investors with a horizon of 6-12 months should remain overweight JGBs, at benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and underweight Treasurys within hedged global bond portfolios. We recommend hedging the currency risk because we continue to expect the dollar to rebound this year. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the cyclical factors that will support the dollar: interest rate differentials, a rebound in U.S. productivity growth and a shift in international growth momentum back in favor of the U.S. In terms of the longer-term view, the Special Report makes the case that the U.S. dollar's multi-decade downtrend will persist. This does not mean, however, that long-term investors will make any money by underweighting the greenback. The 30-year U.S./bund yield spread of 190 basis points means that the €/USD would have to rise to more than 2.2 to offset the yield disadvantage of being overweight the euro versus the dollar over the next 30-years. Indeed, once it appears that the U.S. yield curve has discounted the full extent of the Fed tightening cycle (perhaps 12 months from now), it will make sense for long-term investors to go long U.S. Treasurys versus bunds on an unhedged basis. Conclusion Recent data releases suggest that global growth is peaking, especially in the manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, we do not believe that this heralds a slowdown in growth meaningful enough to negatively impact the profit outlook in the major countries. Indeed, the major fiscal tailwind in the U.S. will lift growth and extend the runway for earnings to expand at least through 2019. That said, fiscal stimulus at this stage of the U.S. business cycle will serve to accentuate a boom/bust cycle, where stronger growth in 2018/19 gives way to higher inflation a hard landing in 2020. The Fed is willing to sit back and watch the impact of fiscal stimulus unfold in the near term. But by early 2019, the Fed will find itself behind the curve with rising inflation and an overheating economy. The monetary policy risk for financial markets will then surge, setting up for a classic end to this expansion. The consequences of years of corporate releveraging will come home to roost. This year, trade skirmishes will be a headwind for risk assets and will no doubt generate further bouts of volatility. Nonetheless, recent signals from both the U.S. and China suggest that the situation will not degenerate into a trade war. The bottom line is that, while the economic expansion and equity bull market are both in late innings, investors should stay overweight risk assets and short duration for now. Stay overweight cyclical stocks versus defensives, overweight corporate bonds versus governments, overweight oil-related plays, and modestly long the U.S. dollar against most currencies except the yen. Our checklist of items to time the exit from risk is not yet flashing red. We would change our mind if our checklist goes south, our forward-looking indicators turn sharply lower or U.S. inflation suddenly picks up. We are also watching closely the situation in Iran, the U.S./China trade spat and NAFTA negotiations. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 29, 2018 Next Report: April 26, 2018 1 For more information on why we believe that Sino-American conflict will be a defining feature of the 21st century, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 ECB President Mario Draghi. Speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html 3 For more information, please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms," dated March 20, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart II-1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. Chart II-1At Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up, as we discuss in the Overview section. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart II-1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart II-2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart II-2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart II-3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. Chart II-3Twin Deficits And The Dollar The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart II-3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. Chart II-4Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart II-4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next (see the Overview section). (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart II-5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart II-5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart II-6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart II-7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart II-6U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart II-7Composition Of Net International ##br##Investment Position A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart II-6, top panel). In Chart II-8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart II-8Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart II-9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart II-9 reveals. Chart II-9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart II-1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The earnings backdrop remains constructive for the equity market. In the U.S., bottom-up forward earnings estimates and the net earnings revisions ratio have spiked on the back of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, many of the other equity-related indicators in this section have moved in the wrong direction. The monetary indicator is shifting progressively into negative territory as the Fed gradually tightens the monetary screws. Valuation in the U.S. market improved a little over the past month, but our composite Valuation Indicator is still very close to one sigma overvalued. Technically, our Speculation Indicator is still in frothy territory, but our Composite Sentiment Indicator has pulled back significantly toward the neutral line. Our Technical Indicator broke below the 9-month moving average in March (i.e. a 'sell' signal). These are worrying signs. Nonetheless, at this point we believe they are a reflection of the more volatile late-cycle period that the market has entered. An equity correction could occur at any time, but a bear market would require a significant and sustained economic downturn that depresses earnings estimates. Our checklist does not warn of such a scenario over the next 12 months. It is also a good sign that our Willingness-to-Pay indicator is still rising, at least for the U.S. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. While this suggests that investor flows remain positive for the U.S. equity market, the WTP appears to have rolled over in both Europe and Japan. This goes against our overweight in European stocks versus the U.S. in currency hedged terms (see the Overview section). Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained on its bullish equity signal in March. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. So far, the indicator has not flashed 'red'. Treasurys are hovering on the 'inexpensive' side of fair value, but are not cheap based on our model. Extended technicals suggest that the period of consolidation will persist for a while longer. Value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. Little has changed on the U.S. dollar front. It is expensive by some measures, but is on the oversold side technically. We still expect a final upleg this year, before the long-term downtrend resumes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Fixed Income Asset Allocation: Global growth indicators remain solid, while inflation pressures continue to build. Central banks will remain focused on those factors, and not news-driven market volatility spikes, until the trends change. The cyclical environment still favors a below-benchmark duration stance for bond investors, favoring credit over government debt, but with lower risk-adjusted return expectations. U.K. Gilts: Bank of England hawkishness is increasing, but policymakers will be hard pressed to tighten more than is currently priced. Stay overweight Gilts in hedged global government bond portfolios. Position for a steeper Gilt curve by going long the 5yr in a 2yr/5yr/10yr butterfly trade. Feature Chart of the WeekStill A Bond-Bearish Backdrop Higher financial market volatility remains the most important investment theme for 2018, as investors continue to be fed a steady diet of worrisome headlines. Threats of a U.S. - China trade war, widening LIBOR-OIS spreads in the U.S., the ascent of trade and foreign policy hawks in the White House, troubles at Facebook hitting the market-leading technology stocks - all are just the latest reasons for investors to become more cautious on taking risk. Yet the ability of markets to shrug off, or succumb to, growing uncertainty will be related to two things - the momentum of global economic growth and the future direction of global monetary policy. On the former, the latest data releases have shown some moderation in the strong coordinated global growth upturn witnessed over the past year. Our aggregate measures such as the global PMI and global ZEW indices have dipped lower in the first few months of 2018. These indicators remain at levels suggesting growth is still in decent shape, even with some worsening in expectations (Chart of the Week). On the latter, the BCA Central Bank Monitors are still showing a growing need to tighten monetary policy further in the major developed economies. This continues to put upward pressure on government bond yields through rising inflation expectations and a higher expected path of short-term interest rates. Until there is evidence of a more meaningful downturn in global growth, bond yields will keep on drifting higher. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance for fixed income investors, favoring spread product over government bonds, while running below-average portfolio risk (i.e. tracking error) given more elevated levels of market volatility. The "TINA Trade" Is Now The "TISNA Trade" - There Is STILL No Alternative Central bankers remain on a path to normalize the extraordinary monetary accommodation of the past several years, led by their steadfast belief in the Phillips Curve at a time of low unemployment in most countries. Against this backdrop, government bond yields cannot fall enough to limit the damage from rapid equity market selloffs without much softer growth or inflation data that would alter the expected trajectory of policy rates. This implies a higher structural level of market volatility now relative to previous years, as we discussed in a recent Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report.1 Yet despite the signs of greater nervousness among investors, there is still a strong level of positive sentiment towards equities and bearish sentiment towards bonds according to the Market Vane indices (Chart 2). The latest edition of the widely-followed Bank of America Merrill Lynch Investor Survey also revealed a disconnect between the opinions of investors (worries over protectionism, trade wars, higher inflation and softer global growth) and actual positions (large equity overweight's favoring cyclical growth stocks).2 Investors seem to be "nervously complacent", staying long risk assets (equities, credit) and underweight safe havens (government bonds) but with a growing list of concerns. For now, this appears to be the most appropriate allocation, for the following reasons: Global growth is still generally strong. Our global manufacturing PMI remains close to the cyclical highs, although there was some pullback seen in the "flash estimates" for March in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart 3). The breadth of the current cyclical global upturn remains strong, with all eighteen countries in the composite index having a PMI in the "growth zone" above 50 (top panel). Chart 2Pro-Risk Sentiment,##BR##Despite More Volatile Markets Chart 3Global Growth##BR##Still Looks Good The OECD global leading economic indicator continues to accelerate, while the Citigroup global inflation surprise index is also picking up (Chart 4). These are pointing to continued upward pressure on global bond yields through higher real yields and faster inflation expectations, respectively. The global cyclical backdrop is boosting inflation. 75% of OECD countries are operating beyond full employment while capacity utilization rates in the developed economies are approaching 80% - the highest level since mid-2008 (Chart 5, top panel). Global oil prices should continue to grind higher, with BCA's commodity strategists now expecting the benchmark Brent oil price hitting $80/bbl in one year's time (middle panel). Also, global export price inflation is showing no signs of slowing, suggesting that global headline inflation should continue moving higher (bottom panel). Chart 4Upward Pressure On##BR##Real Yields AND Inflation Chart 5A More Inflationary##BR##Global Backdrop Central bankers are still biased towards becoming less accommodative. This was seen last week with the U.S. Federal Reserve hiking the fed funds rate and raising its growth and interest rate projections (Chart 6), while the Bank of England (BoE) gave a strong indication that an interest rate increase was coming in May. This comes as the European Central Bank continues to signal a tapering of its asset purchase program later this year. The latter point is critical for markets, as tighter global monetary policy has diminished the ability for investors to ignore sources of potential uncertainty. Take the current concern over trade tensions between the U.S. and China, for example. A Google Trends search of the phrase "China Trade War" shows, unsurprisingly, a huge recent spike in interest in that topic (Chart 7, top panel). There was also a big increase in such online searches around the time of Donald Trump's election victory in November 2016 and his inauguration in January 2017. At that time, however, global monetary policy was still accommodative, with the real fed funds rate well below the neutral "r-star" estimate (middle panel) and central bank balance sheets in the major developed economies expanding at a 20% annual rate (bottom panel). Chart 6The Fed Will Keep On Hiking Chart 7Expect More Vol Spikes While CBs Tighten The easy monetary settings helped keep market volatility low despite the shock of Trump's election win and what it meant for the implementation of his more aggressive campaign promises, like raising tariffs on U.S. imports from China. Fast forward to today and the real fed funds rate is now at neutral and central banks are buying bonds at a much slower pace. This means that markets will have a tougher time ignoring greater uncertainty, as was witnessed in last week's equity market selloff following President Trump's announcement of $60 billion in Chinese import tariffs. Going forward, without the soothing balm of very low interest rates and plentiful central bank liquidity expansion, volatility spikes like the ones seen in early February and last week will become more frequent. The implication is that volatility-adjusted returns on risk assets will be lower, even if the global growth backdrop remains reasonably supportive. A pro-risk investment bias, but playing with fewer chips on the table, is still appropriate over at least the next six months. Bottom Line: Global growth indicators remain at elevated levels, while inflation pressures continue to build. Central banks will remain focused on those factors, and not news-driven market volatility spikes, until the trends change. The cyclical environment still favors a below-benchmark duration stance for bond investors, favoring credit over government debt, but with lower risk-adjusted return expectations. U.K. Update: Sticking With Our Overweight Call On Gilts Chart 8Mixed Messages On U.K. Growth The BoE kept interest rates unchanged at last week's policy meeting, but sent clear signals that a rate hike would be very likely in May. Two members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), Michael Saunders and Ian McCafferty, actually voted a rate hike last week, which was a surprise. The BoE's increasing hawkishness continues a process that began in autumn of 2017, when policymakers began shifting their language in advance of a November rate hike - the first BoE rate increase since May 2007. The central bank had been worried more about the risks to the U.K. growth outlook since the July 2016 Brexit vote, while ignoring the currency-driven overshoot of its inflation target. Now, the BoE seems a bit more comfortable with the U.K. growth outlook, even amid the ongoing Brexit uncertainty, as was noted in the official policy statement from last week's MPC meeting: Developments regarding the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union - and in particular the reaction of households, businesses and asset prices to them - remain the most significant influence on, and source of uncertainty about, the economic outlook. In such exceptional circumstances, the MPC's remit specifies that the Committee must balance any significant trade-off between the speed at which it intends to return inflation sustainably to the target and the support that monetary policy provides to jobs and activity. The steady absorption of slack has reduced the degree to which it is appropriate for the MPC to accommodate an extended period of inflation above the target. We find it a bit of a surprise that the BoE would seek to switch to inflation-fighting mode now, for two reasons: U.K. growth momentum may be slowing. The flash estimate for the March manufacturing PMI fell to an 8-month low, while the leading economic indicators (LEIs) from both the OECD and Conference Board have clearly rolled over (Chart 8). The BoE did highlight the recent pickup in wage inflation, with year-over-year growth in average weekly earnings now up to 2.8% in nominal terms. This has pushed real wage growth back into positive territory (3rd panel), which appears to be feeding through into a slight pickup in consumer confidence (bottom panel). Although the modest increase in February retail sales suggests that a consumer spending revival may be slower to arrive than the BoE is hoping for. U.K. inflation momentum is slowing. The surge in U.K. inflation following the decline in the British Pound after the 2016 Brexit vote is in the process of unwinding. The trade-weighted currency is up 9% from the 2016 low, which has sliced imported goods price inflation from 10% to 2% over the same period (Chart 9). Headline CPI inflation, which rose from near 0% to 3.1% in November 2017, now sits at 2.7%. The upturn in core CPI inflation has also stabilized. While both CPI inflation measures remain above the 2% BoE target, the momentum has clearly peaked and pipeline price pressures continue to decelerate. Investors have listened to the signals sent by the BoE, pricing in 45bps of hikes over the next year and pushing the 2-year Gilt yield to 0.9% - the highest level since May 2011 (Chart 10). At the same time, market-based inflation expectations have dipped a bit and the U.K. data surprise index has fallen back to the zero line (bottom panel). Chart 9U.K. Inflation Has Peaked Chart 10A Rapid BoE Repricing At The Wrong Time? Conflicting signals can also be seen in the slope of the Gilt curve. The nominal 2-year/10-year Gilt curve now sits at 55bps, just above the 2016 post-Brexit lows. The real Gilt curve (the nominal curve minus the 2-year/10-year U.K. CPI swap curve) is sitting at the flattest levels last seen since 2015/16 (Chart 11, top panel) when the BoE base rate was above zero in real terms (2nd and 3rd panels). Now, the real base is deeply negative around -2%, suggesting that the Gilt curve may already be discounting higher real BoE policy rates. At the same time, the U.K. inflation expectations curve is steepening, with 2-year CPI swaps falling faster than 10-year CPI swaps, as was the case during that 2015/16 episode (bottom panel). U.K. money markets are now pricing in an increase in the base rate to 1% over the next year. Given the slowing trends in the U.K. LEIs, the manufacturing PMI and realized inflation rates, we remain doubtful that the BoE will be able to deliver more hikes than are currently discounted. We continue to view U.K. Gilts as a "defensive" overweight within dedicated global government bond portfolios, especially given our recommendation to also stay defensive on overall duration exposure. The primary trend in the performance of U.K. Gilts relative to the Barclays Global Treasury Index, on a currency-hedged basis, is broadly correlated (inversely) to the ratio of the U.K. OECD LEI to the overall OECD LEI (Chart 12, top panel). Thus, we feel comfortable sticking with our call to expect U.K. Gilt outperformance in the next 6-12 months as long as the U.K. LEI continues to underperform - especially with the yield betas of Gilts to U.S. Treasuries and euro area government bonds now well below 1 (middle panel). Chart 11The Gilt Curve##BR##Looks Too Flat Chart 12Stay O/W Gilts & Add Go Long##BR##The Belly On A 2/5/10 Butterfly Given the recent flattening of the Gilt curve, which appears a bit extreme, we are adding a new trade to our Tactical Overlay this week: going long the belly (5-year) of a 2-year/5-year/10-year (2/5/10) Gilt butterfly. The current level of that 2/5/10 butterfly is 9bps, and we are targeting a move down to the -10bp to -15bp range. This trade is mildly negative carry, with -0.75bps of flattening per month already discounted in the forwards over the next year (bottom panel), but we anticipate the 2/5/10 butterfly to compress at a faster rate than the forwards in the coming months. Bottom Line: BoE hawkishness is increasing, but policymakers will be hard pressed to tighten more than is currently priced. Stay overweight Gilts in hedged global government bond portfolios. Position for a steeper Gilt curve by going long the 5yr point in a 2yr/5yr/10yr butterfly trade. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices", dated March 6th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/cracks-in-bull-case-emerge-yet-stubborn-investors-not-moving Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Economy: There is no imminent danger of a significant deterioration in global growth, but the rate of improvement is peaking. The result of the more moderate pace of economic growth and the mounting threat of protectionism is that there is more two way risk in both bond yields and spreads than there has been for some time. Fed: The message from last week's Fed meeting is that the committee recognizes that the outlook for U.S. growth and inflation has improved. Going forward, we anticipate a more hawkish Fed that is somewhat less responsive to tightening financial conditions. This will keep a floor under Treasury yields and impart volatility to credit spreads. Leveraged Loans: Leveraged loans have not yet started to outperform fixed rate junk bonds, but this will change as we approach the end of the credit cycle and loan coupons follow interest rates higher. Feature Yet another down week for risk assets, and all of a sudden 2018 is shaping up to be a pretty miserable year for spread product (Chart 1). High-Yield corporate bonds have underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 29 basis points year-to-date, and investment grade corporates have underperformed by 90 bps. Meanwhile, the sell-off in Treasuries has also paused and the 10-year yield is now 12 bps below its 2018 peak. Chart 1Annual Excess Returns To Credit What exactly is going on? We identify two catalysts for the recent market moves and consider each in turn. Questioning The Synchronized Global Recovery Market moves during the past few weeks have, to some extent, been driven by investors starting to question the sustainability of the so-called "synchronized global recovery". The strong pace of global growth has been a key driver of higher bond yields and risk asset outperformance, and most indicators suggest this trend remains intact. The Global Manufacturing PMI is high compared to recent years, and our PMI diffusion index shows that only 1 out of 36 countries has a PMI below the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2). Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is similarly elevated, and has a diffusion index that has mostly been in positive territory since mid-2016 (Chart 2, panel 2). But last week we received some evidence that this rapid pace of growth may not persist. Flash PMIs predict that the Eurozone Manufacturing PMI will fall to 56.6 in March, down from a recent peak of 60.6 (Chart 2, panel 3). Similarly, the Japanese PMI is predicted to fall to 53.2 in March, down from a recent peak of 54.8 (Chart 2, bottom panel). There is no Flash PMI data for China, the country with the largest weighting in the Global PMI index, but leading indicators suggest that Chinese PMI will also moderate in the months ahead. This is a risk we have flagged in several recent reports.1 Granted, these are all strong PMI readings that are still well above the 50 boom/bust line, but the pace of improvement has clearly moderated and this sort of marginal change often causes investors to extrapolate weaker growth into the future. This appears to be exactly what is happening. The Global ZEW index, a survey of investors' economic sentiment, fell in March (Chart 3). The BCA Carry Canary Indicator, a composite measure of emerging market currency trades geared to global growth, has also weakened (Chart 3, panel 2). Meanwhile, cyclical equity sectors (excluding technology) have not managed to outperform defensives even as Treasury yields have risen, a break from the prior correlation (Chart 3, panel 3). Of the four market-based indicators that most closely track the 10-year Treasury yield, only our Boom/Bust Indicator is not currently pointing to lower yields in the near-term (Chart 3, bottom panel). As usual, we turn to our 2-Factor Treasury Model to assess the impact of moderating global growth on the 10-year Treasury yield. At present, the model - which is based on the Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar - pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.96% (Chart 4). However, if we assume that Flash PMI readings for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan are accurate, and also that PMIs in the rest of the world and dollar sentiment stay flat at current levels, then the fair value reading from our model will drop to 2.85% when the final March PMI data are released next week. This is not far from the current yield level, and could even be an optimistic forecast if the Chinese PMI starts to roll over, as we expect. Chart 2Global Recovery Still Intact Chart 3Global Growth Warning Signs Chart 42-Factor Treasury Model Of course the global economy also has to contend with the possibility of an escalating trade war between the U.S. and China. Markets reacted last week as the U.S. government ramped up the pressure by announcing a 25% tariff on $50-$60 billion worth of trade with China. While the immediate economic impact of these measures is highly uncertain, our Geopolitical strategists view an escalating trade war as a real possibility during the next 1-2 years.2 Bottom Line: There is no imminent danger of a significant deterioration in global growth, but the rate of improvement is peaking. The result of the more moderate pace of economic growth and the mounting threat of protectionism is that there is more two way risk in both bond yields and spreads than there has been for some time. Stay tuned. A Less Supportive Fed Chart 5Fed Versus Market The second catalyst driving bond markets at the current juncture is that the Fed is providing markets with a less accommodative monetary back-drop. Faced with a firmer outlook for U.S. growth and inflation, the Fed is now somewhat less responsive to tighter financial conditions than it has been during the past few years. This hawkishness will put a floor under Treasury yields going forward, and is also the most immediate risk to credit spreads, as we have explained in several recent reports.3 Chart 6The Fed's Phillips Curve Model Case in point, the Fed went ahead with a rate hike at last week's FOMC meeting despite the recent turbulence in financial markets. Not only that, but FOMC participants generally revised up their projections for both economic growth and the fed funds rate. The same number of participants (6) now expect four rate hikes this year as expect three. Last December only four participants expected four or more rate hikes in 2018. Further, the committee's median projection for the fed funds rate at the end of 2019 rose from 2.7% to 2.9%, the median for the end of 2020 rose from 3.1% to 3.4%, and even the median federal funds rate expected to prevail in the longer run rose from 2.8% to 2.9%. The market has moved a long way towards the Fed's dots in recent months, but is still somewhat more pessimistic. The overnight index swap curve is priced for slightly more than three rate hikes in 2018 (including last week's), but is below the Fed's median projection for 2019, 2020 and the longer run (Chart 5). As mentioned above, the Fed also revised up its projections for economic growth and the pace of labor market tightening. The Fed is now looking for an unemployment rate of 3.6% by the end of next year, well below its estimated 4.5% natural rate. At the same time, however, the Fed left its projections for core inflation largely unchanged leaving some to question whether the Fed is re-assessing its commitment to the Phillips curve. In fact, the following question was asked to Chairman Powell at last week's post-meeting press conference:4 Question: Interesting changes in the forecast. A higher growth forecast [...]. Lower unemployment, [...]. And yet, very little change in inflation. What does that say about what you and the Committee believe about the inflation dynamic? Answer: [...] that suggests that the relationship between changes in slack and inflation is not so tight. [...] It has diminished, but it's still there. In other words, the Chairman refused to dismiss the Phillips curve framework altogether but acknowledged that the slope is very flat. The implication is that the labor market will have to run hot for the next couple of years for the Fed to achieve its inflation target. By our assessment, the Fed's projections for the unemployment rate and inflation seem fairly reasonable. Chart 6 shows an expectations-augmented Phillips curve model of core inflation that we re-created from a 2015 Janet Yellen speech.5 Using the Fed's median projections for the unemployment rate, and also holding relative import prices and inflation expectations flat, the model projects that core inflation will rise during the next two years, but will remain slightly below the Fed's target. In other words, the Fed's inflation forecasts seem to agree with the empirical data. In Search Of A More Robust Phillips Curve One of the reasons that the Phillips curve is so flat is that while core PCE inflation includes some prices that respond briskly to labor market slack, it also includes many prices that are less driven by labor slack and more by idiosyncratic factors. The price of imported goods being a prime example. Recent research from the San Francisco Fed splits out those prices that are more sensitive to labor slack - procyclical inflation - from those that are less sensitive to labor slack - acyclical inflation.6 Interestingly, it is the acyclical components that have caused core inflation to run below the Fed's target in recent years, while procyclical inflation has been well above 2% (Chart 7). This framework is helpful because it allows us to estimate a more robust Phillips curve on just the components of inflation that are most sensitive to tightness in the labor market. For example, when we estimate a Phillips curve relationship on just procyclical inflation (excluding housing), the model shows that this component of inflation will rise by 0.18% for every percentage point decline in the unemployment rate. When we estimate the Phillips curve model on overall core PCE we find that a 1 percentage point decline in the unemployment rate only raises core PCE inflation by 0.09%. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that if the unemployment rate follows the path predicted by the Fed, then procyclical inflation (ex. housing) will rise during the next two years, and should stay above the Fed's 2% target. Our own model of housing inflation also shows that its deceleration should reverse in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). Chart 7Acyclical Components A Drag On Inflation Chart 8TCore Inflation Will Move Higher As for the acyclical components of inflation, in a prior report we discussed why health care inflation should rise during the next two years, and this has so far been confirmed by strong producer price data (Chart 8, panel 3).7 For the remaining acyclical components, of which 41% are goods and 59% are services, we would expect that at least the goods component will rise in response to the recent acceleration in non-oil import prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). In conclusion, there is reason to expect some upside in each component of core inflation. We anticipate that core inflation will move higher in the coming months and that the Fed will respond with continued gradual rate hikes. Bottom Line: The message from last week's Fed meeting is that the committee recognizes that the outlook for U.S. growth and inflation has improved. Going forward, we anticipate a more hawkish Fed that is somewhat less responsive to tightening financial conditions. This will keep a floor under Treasury yields and impart volatility to credit spreads. Leveraged Loan Update Chart 9Loan Coupons Will Rise We continue to recommend that investors favor floating rate leveraged loans over fixed rate high-yield bonds in their credit portfolios. The two main reasons for this recommendation are that (i) loans will benefit from higher coupons as the Fed lifts rates and LIBOR resets higher and (ii) loans will benefit from higher recoveries than bonds when the next default cycle occurs. However, somewhat puzzlingly, as 3-month LIBOR has increased during the past few years the coupon return on the S&P Leveraged Loan index has not kept pace. In fact, leveraged loans only started to outperform fixed rate junk a couple of months ago (Chart 9). There are two reasons for this. First, many leveraged loans have LIBOR floors at around 1%, so initial increases in LIBOR in 2016 had no impact on leveraged loan coupons. But 3-month LIBOR is now well above 1%, and yet leveraged loan coupons are still not rising. This is because issuers have been aggressively refinancing loans at lower spreads as LIBOR has increased. This spread compression has kept coupon payments low, but history tells us that this dynamic cannot persist. Eventually, as credit spreads stop tightening near the end of the credit cycle, issuers will not be able to reduce their interest costs through refinancing and will be forced to accept higher coupon payments as interest rates rise. Notice that even though the average price on the S&P Leveraged Loan index was higher between 2004 and 2006 than it is today, that did not prevent loan coupons from rising alongside LIBOR, after some initial lag (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Leveraged loans have not yet started to outperform fixed rate junk bonds, but this will change as we approach the end of the credit cycle and loan coupons follow interest rates higher. 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, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://gps.bcaresearch.com/blog/view_blog/460 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Brainard Gives The Green Light", dated March 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 A full transcript of the post-meeting press conference: https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20180321.pdf 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 6 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2017-35.pdf 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Our supply-demand balances indicate oil fundamentals are softening slightly. All else equal, this might prompt us to lower our average-price forecasts for Brent and WTI from $74 and $70/bbl this year by $2 to $3/bbl. However, this is oil: All else equal seldom applies. An unusual confluence of risk factors has raised the likelihood of sharp price moves - down and up - this year. These range from the threat of trade wars (bearish for demand), to renewed U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and deeper sanctions against Venezuela (bullish, as they could remove as much as 1.4mm b/d of supply). The possible extended delay of the Aramco IPO compounds the uncertainty. Brent and WTI implied volatilities - the principal gauge of price risk in trading markets - had a brief spike earlier this month, but subsequently retreated (Chart of the Week). We believe the lower volatility offers an opportunity to get long a put spread in Dec/18 Brent options, to complement an existing long call spread in these options. Energy: Overweight. We are taking profit on our long Jul/18 vs. short Dec/18 WTI calendar spread to re-position for the higher volatility. As of Tuesday's close, this spread was up 90.4% since inception November 2, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Metal Bulletin reported the flow of zinc into China from Spain has turned into a flood, which is depressing physical premiums and causing unintended inventory accumulation. Almost 161k MT of Spanish zinc was shipped to China last year, a 15-fold increase in annual volumes. The bulk of the increase occurring during the August-to-December period. Spain accounted for a quarter of the ~ 67k MT of zinc imported by China in January. Precious Metals: Neutral. Going into Jerome Powell's first meeting as Fed Chair, gold held recent support ~ $1,310/oz. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. U.S. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue warned farmers a tit-for-tat trade war could hit their markets particularly hard earlier this week, according to Reuters. Cotton could be especially hard hit (please see p. 9 for details).1 Feature Fundamentally, our global supply-demand balances indicate the global oil market will remain in a physical deficit this year, even though they do suggest a slight softening. As such, we are leaving our Brent and WTI forecasts for this year at $74 and $70/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, we also are leaving our average-price Brent and WTI expectations at $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, with the caveat that these are highly conditional on OPEC 2.0's expected forward guidance later this year.2 Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Volatility Lower,##BR##Even As Price Risks Mount Chart 2BCA's Oil Price Forecast##BR##Remains Unchanged Nonetheless, it is difficult to remain sanguine regarding the oil-price outlook. A remarkable confluence of geopolitical events has introduced higher risk to the downside and the upside for oil prices this year and next. On the downside, trade-war rhetoric continues to ramp up, as the Trump administration threatens sanctions against China for alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, and slow-walks NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and Canada. Either or both of these could be the spark that lights a global trade war. Re the latter, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue is warning U.S. farmers their markets could get caught up in a tit-for-tat trade war.3 Upside oil-price risk arises from increasingly bellicose signaling by the Trump administration re the Iran nuclear sanctions deal, and hints the U.S. could impose sanctions directly on Venezuela's oil industry, which would augment sanctions against individuals already in place. Rex Tillerson's expected replacement at the U.S. State Department, Mike Pompeo, shares President Trump's hostility to the 2015 deal that lifted trade sanctions on Iran, which allowed it to increase its production and boost exports. If the May 12 deadline for issuing waivers on the Iran sanctions passes, trade penalties again will be in force against Iran, which likely will, once again, reduce its production and exports, if U.S. allies fall in line with Washington. The odds of this are now higher with Rex Tillerson no longer at the helm at the U.S. State Department. Lastly, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, who, as Minister of Defense, is leading KSA's proxy wars against Iran throughout the Middle East, is in Washington cementing relations with President Trump. Trump has indicated his administration is abandoning his predecessor's pivot away from the Middle East and re-engaging at a deeper level with KSA. The Crown Prince also indicated he will be discussing the Iran sanctions with President Trump in meetings this week.4 Fundamentals Remain Supportive ... For Now Chart 3Supply-Demand Fundamentals##BR##Remain Supportive The slight softening detected in our supply-demand balances model is largely coming from the supply side (Chart 3). Most of this is due to surging U.S. crude and liquids production. The EIA's higher-than-expected U.S. crude oil production estimates for 4Q17 provides a higher base on which continued production gains can build this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in this week's Energy Sector Strategy that, over the past three months, the EIA increased its U.S. onshore oil production estimates for 4Q17 by 310k b/d.5 Although we faded this estimate earlier this year, Matt's analysis of E&P balance sheet data for the quarter confirms this surge in production. U.S. production growth dominates global growth this year - up almost 1.3mm b/d on average y/y, led by a 1.2mm b/d y/y gain in shale-oil output. For next year, we have U.S. output up just over 1mm b/d, almost all of which is accounted for by increased shale production. Total U.S. crude production goes to 10.6mm b/d this year, and 11.9mm b/d next year. In 1Q18, the U.S. will displace KSA as the second-largest crude producer in the world. U.S. crude oil production will exceed Russia's expected crude and liquids production of 11.35mm b/d next year by 2Q19 (Table 1). Total U.S. crude and liquids production (including NGLs, biofuels, and refinery gain) goes to 17.4mm b/d this year, and 19.1mm b/d next year. Strong demand continues to absorb rising production this year and next. By our reckoning, global oil demand grows 1.7mm b/d this year, and 1.64mm b/d next year, up slightly from our earlier estimate of 1.57mm b/d. Global demand averages 100.3mm b/d this year, and just shy of 102mm b/d next year. These fundamentals continue to support our judgement that OPEC 2.0's primary goal - draining OECD inventories below their current five-year average - will be met this year (Chart 4). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Chart 4Expect OECD Inventories To Draw A Bit Slower Expect OPEC 2.0 To Endure Next year is a different story. Not because markets fundamentally change. But because we fully expect to be substantially revising our production estimates as OPEC 2.0 evolves into a more durable, longer-lasting structure. Chart 5Backwardation Weakens Under##BR##Provisional 2019 Estimates We expect OPEC 2.0 to provide forward guidance regarding its production-management goals for 2019 and beyond, once all of the particulars in formalizing its structure are agreed later this year. As a result, we fully expect to be revising our price forecasts and OECD inventory expectations in line with more definitive OPEC 2.0 production guidance throughout this year. As things stand now, we assume volumes voluntarily removed from production - some 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d by our reckoning - will slowly be returned to the market over 1H19. By 2H19, those states within OPEC 2.0 that actually cut production - mostly KSA and Russia - are assumed to be back at pre-2017 production levels. More than likely, the coalition will maintain its production cuts at a lower level so that OECD inventories do not grow excessively and place the OPEC and non-OPEC member states of the coalition in the same dire straits that led to the formation of OPEC 2.0. This will arrest the descent in prices generated by our fundamental models toward the end of 2019 (Chart 2). In addition, the renewed OECD inventory build our model generates (Chart 4) also will be arrested. This will keep markets backwardated in 2019, as opposed to moving toward contango as production growth exceeds consumption growth, restraining the erosion in the backwardation in the forward Brent and WTI curves (Chart 5). Tail Risks Rising In Oil Markets An unusual confluence of risk factors has raised the likelihood of sharp price moves to the downside and to the upside this year. These range from the threat of growth-killing trade wars, to renewed U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and deeper sanctions directed at Venezuela's oil sector. A full-blown global trade war would be bearish for prices, as it would depress growth globally, particularly in EM economies, which are the primary drivers of oil demand. At the other end of the price distribution, reimposing sanctions on Iran and targeting Venezuela's oil industry with sanctions could remove up to 1.4mm b/d of supply from markets later this year, by some estimates.6 A former Obama administration official familiar with the Iran sanctions estimates as much as 500k b/d of exports could be lost if sanctions are reimposed. Venezuela's crude oil output has been collapsing and currently is less than 1.6mm b/d. Oil-directed sanctions from the U.S. could force the Venezuelan oil industry to collapse. Added to this volatile mix, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, also known as MBS, called on President Trump this week in Washington. MBS is leading KSA's proxy wars against Iran, and remains at the forefront of efforts to deny them political and military advantage in the Gulf and the Middle East. MBS and President Trump are on the same page in their opposition to the Iran sanctions deal, as is the presumptive U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who, as Reuters notes, "fiercely opposed the Iranian nuclear deal as a member of Congress."7 Lastly, reports of a possible extended delay of the Aramco IPO creates additional uncertainty re our analysis. It is entirely possible KSA thus far has failed to get indicative bids for the 5% of the firm they intend to float anywhere near its $100 billion target. A target bid would value Saudi Aramco at ~ $2 trillion. Given that we view the IPO as the principal driver of KSA's oil policy over the next two years, this raises questions as to whether the Kingdom will remain committed to higher prices over the short term - $60 to $70/bbl is the range we assume - or whether it will lower its sights to a range we believe Russia favors ($50 to $60/bbl). We continue to expect KSA to favor higher prices over the short term, as it works to reduce its fiscal breakeven oil price from ~ $70/bbl to $60/bbl. A higher price range also will help the Kingdom raise debt under more favorable terms, should it decide to wait on the IPO and finance the early stages of its diversification away from oil-export revenues. Either way, we would expect the Kingdom to favor higher prices. It also is possible a lack of bids approaching KSA's Aramco target level will make a private placement more attractive. A consortium led by China's sovereign wealth fund is believed to have shown a bid for the entire 5% placement. The quid pro quo is believed to have been KSA accepting payment for its oil in yuan. This could have profound implications for the market, as we noted in a Special Report exploring the Kingdom's anti-corruption campaign. This alternative also would tend to favor higher prices, in as much as KSA would not want its new shareholder to realize a loss shortly after its purchase of 5% of Aramco.8 Investment Implications Of Higher Tail Risk As our Chart of the Week indicates, trading markets do not appear to have priced the growing tail risks into option premiums. The market's chief gauge of oil-price risk - the implied volatilities of traded put and call options - staged a brief rally, but have since retreated.9 Volatility is the critical driver of option value. We believe the low volatility levels in the market at present offer an opportunity to add to our long Brent call spreads in Dec/18 options. Specifically, we recommend getting long a $50/bbl Dec/18 Brent put and selling a $45/bbl Dec/18 Brent put option against it. This will give investors low-cost, low-risk exposure to a sudden down move, in addition to the upside exposure our existing Dec/18 $65 vs. $70/bbl Brent call spread provides to a sudden up move resulting from the risk factors we discussed above. Of course, more adventuresome investors can choose to get long put spreads and ignore taking exposure to the upside if they believe downside risks from trade tensions will dominate the evolution of oil prices this year. On the other side of the divide, those who believe the increasing geopolitical tensions discussed above will dominate price formation going forward, can choose to get long calls or call spreads and ignore taking exposure to the downside. Separately, we will be taking profits on our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread trade, to re-position for our higher-volatility expectation. This position was up 90.4% as of Tuesday's close, when we mark our recommendations to market. Bottom Line: We are keeping our forecast for 2018 and 2019 unchanged, despite the unexpectedly strong U.S. oil supply growth being reported by the EIA and in E&P quarterly earnings reports. An unlikely confluence of geopolitical risks has raised price risk to the downside and the upside. To position for this, we are recommending investors get long put and call spreads in Dec/18 Brent futures. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed the implications of a trade war vis-a-vis U.S. ag markets in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report. Please see "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," published by BCA Research March 15, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In last month's publication, we noted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - the putative leaders of the producer coalition we've dubbed OPEC 2.0 - favor formalizing their agreement with a long-term alliance. Among other things, OPEC 2.0 members would be expected to build buffer stocks to address any sudden supply outages, in order to maintain orderly markets. Please see "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see footnote 1 references, and "U.S. agriculture secretary says exports at risk in tariff disputes," published by reuters.com March 19, 2018. 4 Please see "Trump Says of Iran Deal, 'You're Going to See What I Do,' published by bloomberg.com March 20, 2018. 5 Please see "Public Companies Confirm Large Q4 2017 Production Surge," in the March 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "U.S. foreign policy turn could take 1.4 million b/d off global oil market: analysts," published by S&P Global Platts on its online site March 15, 2018. 7 Please see "Oil nears six-week high as concern grows over Middle East," published by uk.reuters.com March 21, 2018. 8 Please see our Special Report published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy November 16, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Implied volatilities, or "implieds" in trading markets, are market-cleared pricing parameters for options. They are calculated once a put (the right to sell the underlying asset upon which an option is written) or call (the right to buy the asset) price (i.e., the option premium) clears the market. Implieds are the annualized standard deviation of expected returns for whatever asset is being priced in a trading market. As such, they are often used to measure the risk that is being priced in options markets by willing buyers and sellers. When implieds are high, risk expectations are high, and the range in which prices are expected to trade widens. "The opposite holds when volatility is low." Ags/Softs Can China Retaliate With Agriculture? China's outsized population means that it is a major consumer of many agricultural products. In last week's Weekly Report, we highlighted that this has made U.S. farmers increasingly wary of the impact of a prospective trade war on the agriculture sector. We concluded that while restrictions on China's imports of U.S. soybeans would have a large impact on U.S. farmers, retaliation by China may not be feasible, given that alternative sources of supply are not readily available. Instead, cotton appears to be the more vulnerable crop, in the event of retaliation. Table 2 below formalizes this analysis. The first column shows the importance of each ag to the U.S., as measured by the percent of U.S. exports that go to China. We use this measure to derive the qualitative value displayed in the third column. The results imply that restrictions on China's imports of U.S. sorghum, soybeans, and to a lesser extent cotton, would severely harm U.S. farmers of these crops. On the other hand, wheat, corn, and rice exports to China do not make up a large proportion of U.S. exports, and thus are not especially significant to American farmers of those commodities. The second column measures China's ability to substitute away from the U.S. as a supplier. We calculate a ratio using world inventories ex-U.S. versus the volume of China's imports from the U.S. for particular crops. The larger the value in column two, the greater China's ability to substitute away from the U.S. Based on these metrics, the last column reveals that China is extremely dependent on the U.S. in terms of sorghum and soybeans, while it has greater ability to find alternative suppliers of the other commodities. Cotton accounts for 16% of U.S. exports. World inventories ex-U.S. for cotton stands at 157 times more than the volume of China's 2017 imports from the U.S. This simple analysis indicates U.S. cotton exports likely will fall victim to retaliation by China, in the event of a trade war. Table 2Cotton Could Fall Victim In Trade Dispute 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 Fed preview: The Fed will hike rates again this week, and may signal a faster pace of future hikes given signs that U.S. inflation is starting to accelerate. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance and stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. Oversold U.S. Treasuries: While most indicators of positioning and momentum for U.S. Treasuries show a deeply oversold market, an analysis of past such episodes shows that it can take 4-6 months before bond yields correct an oversold condition in the absence of slowing growth or inflation - with yields potentially hitting new highs in the interim. ECB Tapering: The ECB strongly believes that the "stock effect" of its asset purchases matters more for European bond yields than the "flow effect". This suggests that the odds of a European "Taper Tantrum" later this year are low, although bond yields there are still headed higher. Feature Chart of the WeekThis Time Is Different? Global bond markets have calmed down after the big surge that started the year. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has traded in a relatively narrow 2.80-2.95% range since the VIX spike in early February, despite a string of weaker-than-expected U.S. economic data prints that has triggered sharp downgrades to Q1/2018 U.S. GDP growth forecasts. At the same time, 10-year benchmark yields for other major government bond markets (Germany, France, U.K., Canada) have been drifting lower, but remain above levels that began the year. In the case of U.S. Treasuries, the overall level of yields is being held up by the steady climb at the short-end of the yield curve. Recent hawkish comments from new Fed Chairman Jay Powell and long-time Fed dove Lael Brainard have raised expectations for a rate hike at this week's FOMC meeting, which is now priced as a certainty. The 2-year Treasury yield has climbed to a 10-year high of 2.3%, which is helping keep a floor underneath longer-term Treasury yields despite positioning indicators showing that traders and bond managers already have significantly reduced duration exposure (Chart of the Week). The other factor that is likely holding up global bond yields is the incremental move by the European Central Bank (ECB) towards a tapering of its asset purchases. The market has already repriced both future interest rate expectations and the term premia embedded in European government bond yields, although recent comments from ECB officials suggest that they believe that there will not be a "Taper Tantrum 2.0" in Europe similar to the Treasury market sell-off in 2013. This week, we tackle those two critical issues for bond markets head-on: the implications of large short positions in the U.S. Treasury market versus the ECB taper impact on global bond yields. Our conclusion is that the impact of both is likely overestimated by investors. How To Think About A Technically Oversold Treasury Market The Fed will deliver another rate hike this week. That outcome has already been fully discounted by the market, which should not be considered surprising given the current U.S. economic backdrop: Inflation: Underlying inflation has clearly bottomed out and has begun to accelerate, with the 3-month annualized growth rate of core CPI inflation now up over 3% (Chart 2). That trend should continue in the next several months: our model for CPI Shelter inflation is calling for a pickup (2nd panel), core goods inflation is showing signs of responding to the weakening U.S. dollar (3rd panel), and the big plunge in U.S. wireless phone prices that severely dampened inflation in 2017 is about to wash out of the year-over-year CPI data and boost core services inflation (bottom panel). Growth: Despite some recent signs of softening momentum in the Q1 data, the underlying trend in U.S. growth remains upbeat. Labor demand is accelerating and our payrolls growth model suggests further gains are coming (Chart 3). Corporate profit growth remains solid and the impact of the Trump tax cuts will only boost earnings momentum and business confidence. Leading economic indicators are also accelerating and suggest that any loss of growth momentum in Q1 - which seems to be an annual occurrence despite the seasonal adjustment of data - will be short-lived (bottom panel). Chart 2U.S. Inflation Is Starting To Perk Up Chart 3No Reason For Any Dovish Fed Surprises Financial Conditions: U.S. equity prices have recovered much of the losses suffered during the February VIX-driven correction, while corporate credit spreads remain narrow from a historical perspective (Chart 4). Add in the weaker U.S. dollar - the impact of which is already boosting import prices and potentially following through into the shorter-term inflation expectations of households (bottom panel) - and overall financial conditions remain highly accommodative. Against this positive backdrop, the Fed can feel confident that its growth and inflation forecasts for 2018 will be achieved, and that inflation expectations can continue to climb back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. There is even a chance that the Fed could accelerate its planned pace of rate hikes (Chart 5), particularly if there is an upgrade to the FOMC growth and inflation projections, which will be updated for this week's meeting. Chart 4U.S. Financial Conditions##BR##Remain Accommodative Chart 5All Eyes On##BR##The Dots This Week Yet for all the positive economic, bond-bearish news, one fact stands out - the U.S. Treasury market is deeply oversold from a technical perspective. This should, in theory, limit the ability for bond yields to continue rising and could set up a short-covering bond rally if there is a more meaningful and prolonged slowing of economic growth or inflation. The technical indicators that we regularly monitor for the U.S. Treasury market are all at or near the extremes of the ranges observed since 2000 (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Treasuries Are Very Oversold The 10-year Treasury yield is 43bps above its 200-day moving average The 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index is -4.3% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders showed the largest underweight duration positioning since the mid-2000s, although there has been some recent reduction of those positions The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is now at 49, near the bottom of the range since 2000 The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures shows a large net short of -8%, scaled by open interest Given this degree of investor negativity toward U.S. Treasuries, some pullback in yields seems inevitable. However, a look back at past episodes where Treasuries were this oversold shows that the timing of such a pullback is highly variable - anywhere from one month to seven months. The determining factor is the growth and inflation backdrop in the U.S. To show this, we did a simple study using two series from our list of Treasury technical indicators. Specifically, we looked at "oversold episodes" since 2000 where the Market Vane Treasury sentiment index dipped below 50 and where the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield fell back below its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the duration (in days), and change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were eleven such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we list them ranked by the number of days it took to complete each episode as we defined it. The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between July 2003 and February 2004, where 203 days passed before the 10-year yield dipped back below its 200-day moving average. The shortest correction was in May 2000, where only 28 days were needed. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market To determine what the U.S. economic backdrop was during each episode, we then simply asked if economic growth was rising or falling, or if inflation was stable/rising or falling, using the ISM Manufacturing index and core PCE inflation as the relevant data series. The answers to those questions are found in the final two columns of Table 1. All the positioning and economic indicators used in our historical study, shaded for the oversold episodes, are shown in Charts 7, 8 and 9. Chart 7U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2000-2005 Chart 8U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2006-2011 Chart 9U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2011 To Today The simplest conclusion that we reached from our study is that the shortest corrections of an oversold Treasury market occurred, unsurprisingly, during the two episodes where both growth and inflation were slowing, with an average length of each episode of 42 days. The four episodes where growth and inflation were both rising had a more variable performance, lasting anywhere from 98 days to 203 days, averaging 156 days per episode. The five episodes where growth was slowing but inflation was stable or rising were also of varying length, averaging 140 days. In other words, it has taken around five months, on average, to correct an oversold Treasury market when inflation was stable or rising, and about 1.5 months when inflation was falling. In the current environment, where the ISM Manufacturing index is in an uptrend and core PCE inflation is rising, we should expect a longer period of time before the Treasury market corrects its oversold condition. If we mark the start of the current episode on February 20th of this year, using the definition described above, then the 10-year Treasury yield may return to its 200-day moving average of 2.4% by August (five months from now). A word of warning for traders and investors looking to play for that move by flipping to a long duration position now, though - the primary trend of the market, defined by that 200-day moving average, is currently rising. It was also rising during the two longest oversold correction episodes 2003-04 and 2013-14. The 10-year Treasury yield only declined -14bps and -17bps, respectively, over those entire episodes. During the 2013-14 episode, also a period similar to today when growth and inflation were both rising, yields actually climbed to new cyclical highs before finally peaking. In other words, betting on a reversal of an oversold bond market without any deterioration in growth and inflation dynamics may generate only modest returns over a lengthy period, and with substantial mark-to-market volatility in the meantime. In the current cycle, with leading indicators for U.S. growth and inflation accelerating and the Fed becoming more hawkish, we recommend maintaining below-benchmark duration positions in the U.S. rather than positioning now for a short-covering rally. Bottom Line: The Fed will hike rates again this week, and may signal a faster pace of future hikes given signs that U.S. inflation is starting to accelerate. While most indicators of positioning and momentum for U.S. Treasuries show a deeply oversold market, an analysis of past such episodes shows that it can take 4-6 months before bond yields correct an oversold condition in the absence of a slowing of economic growth or inflation - with yields potentially hitting new highs in the interim. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance and stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. The ECB Is Betting On A Tantrum-Free Taper Several key ECB officials have been giving speeches over the past week, spelling out a consistent message to the markets on the future of euro area monetary policy. Most notably, ECB President Mario Draghi and ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet gave speeches last week at a conference in Frankfurt. Both of them used nearly identical language to highlight how the ECB's main policy tool going forward will no longer be net asset purchases, but instead will be interest rates and forward guidance on changes to rates.1 This echoes the message sent after the ECB's policy meeting earlier this month, when the commitment to increase the pace of asset purchases was dropped from the ECB policy statement. Both Draghi and Praet repeated the ECB's official stance on the end of asset purchases, which requires a "sustained adjustment" in the path of inflation. This was described by Draghi as: Specifically, a sustained adjustment requires three conditions to be in place. [...] The first is convergence: headline inflation has to be on course to reach our aim over a meaningful definition of the medium term. The second is confidence: we need to be sure that this upward adjustment in inflation has a sufficiently high probability of being realized. The third condition is resilience: the adjustment in inflation has to be self-sustained even without additional net asset purchases. Draghi then went on to add these comments on the sequencing of rate hikes after the asset purchases are completed, with our emphasis added: [...] when progress towards a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation is judged to be sufficient, net purchases will come to an end. At that point, next to our forward guidance, appropriate financial conditions will be maintained by our reinvestment policy. [...] as regards the evolution of our policy rates beyond the end of our net purchases, we will maintain the sequencing that is currently set out in our forward guidance, namely our pledge to keep key interest rates at their current levels "well past" the end of net purchases. This time-based element of our guidance is already vital today, in particular to ensure that our policy stimulus is not weakened by premature expectations of a first rate rise, and so financial conditions remain consistent with inflation convergence. That last line can be roughly translated from policymaker-speak as "we want to avoid a Fed-style Taper Tantrum when we stop buying euro area government bonds." Chart 10An Orderly Repricing Of ECB Expectations Praet made similar comments in his speech, discussing how the first rate hike after the end of asset purchases must only take place once there is a "durable convergence" of euro area inflation with the ECB target of just below 2% on headline inflation. So far, the markets have been heeding the ECB's communication and policy guidance. The timing of the ECB's first full 25bp rate hike, taken from our "months-to-hike" indicator, shows that the market does not expect the ECB to adjust rates until November of 2019 (Chart 10). At the same time, the market is only slowly repricing the term premium on longer-dated euro area government bonds, which would be expected if the ECB were to take its time in fully tapering its asset purchases. With realized euro area inflation, and market-based inflation expectations, still well short of the ECB's target, the market appears to be "correctly" following the ECB's guidance on the timetable for future policy moves. This is keeping euro area bond yields at low levels and dampening interest rate volatility. There may be another factor at work holding down bond yields, however. In a speech given at the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum in New York last month - an event attended by numerous academic and Wall Street economists, as well as several current FOMC members - ECB Executive Board Member Benoit Coeure discussed the importance of the "stock" effect of central bank asset purchases compared to the "flow" effect.2 Or as Coeure described it: [...] the "stock effect" - that is, the persistence of the effects of the stock of bonds held by the central bank on its balance sheet under a commitment of reinvestment. If the effects of purchases dissipate quickly, a shorter purchase horizon could lead to term premia rising even as interest rate expectations remain well anchored by forward guidance. Financial conditions would then tighten. But if the effectiveness of asset purchases rises with the stock of assets already acquired - if there is some "crossover point" where the stock effect becomes more important than the continued flow of purchases - then a reduced pace of purchases would not unduly decompress the term premium. This brings up an interesting point about the ECB's policy strategy as it prepares to taper its asset purchase program. If the ECB can effectively communicate that it will continue to reinvest the maturing bonds on its balance sheet after the new asset purchases have stopped, then the market will not price in a bigger term premium on longer-dated bonds since the ECB will continue to own a huge share of the stock of euro area government debt. The stock effect will dominate the diminishing flow effect. Coeure noted in his speech that the experience of the U.S. in 2013, when Ben Bernanke surprised markets with talk that the Fed was planning on cutting back its asset purchases, is different than Europe today. The biggest reason is that the ECB owns a far bigger share of the European bond market than the Fed did at that time. That is because the ECB asset purchases since its bond buying program began in 2015 have dwarfed the net issuance of euro area government debt (Chart 11). At no point during the Fed's quantitative easing (QE) era did the central bank ever buy more U.S. Treasuries than the U.S. government was issuing. According to the logic of Benoit Coeure, the smaller Fed "footprint" in the Treasury market relative to the ECB's ownership share of euro area government bonds (Chart 12) should mean that the Treasury term premium will be more volatile than that for German bunds (and other euro area debt). That is because a greater share of Treasury issuance must be sold to private investors who are more price-sensitive than central banks. In other words, the flow effect dominates the stock effect. Chart 11ECB & BoJ Have Been Absorbing##BR##All Net Government Bond Issuance Chart 12The 'Stock Effect' Of QE##BR##Should Be Bigger In Europe & Japan In Chart 13, we try and visually prove Coeure's thesis. The chart plots the gap between central bank asset purchases and net government bond issuance (the blue solid line proxying the "flow effect", using IMF data) for the U.S., euro area and Japan versus our estimates of the term premium (the black dotted line). The correlation appears to be very strong for the euro area and Japan during the era of asset purchases for those central banks, perhaps due to the "stock effect" dominating the "flow effect". This differs from the experience seen in the U.S. during the Fed QE era, when there was no stable relationship between the term premium and the amount of Treasuries the Fed was purchasing relative to net issuance. Looking ahead, there are important implications of this "stock vs. flow" argument for the future direction of euro area (and Japanese) bond yields, both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. Treasuries. In Chart 13, we also added BCA's forecasts for net government bond issuance over the next two years relative to our projections for the pace of asset purchases from the ECB and BoJ (both new purchases and reinvestments), and the Fed's own projections for the runoff of Treasuries from its balance sheet. Our estimates show that there will still be no new government bond issuance for the private sector to absorb in the euro area and Japan in 2018 and 2019, even with the ECB expected to fully taper new buying to zero by the end of this year and the BoJ dramatically cutting back its pace of buying. This contrasts to the U.S., where the private sector will be forced to absorb an extra US$1 trillion (!) of Treasuries this year and next, thanks to the huge Trump fiscal stimulus and the diminished buying by the Fed. U.S. private investors may require a higher yield (i.e. term premium) to absorb that additional debt, especially if inflation expectations are rising and the Fed is hiking interest rates at the same time. The implication is that the spread between Treasuries and euro area debt (and Japanese bonds, for that matter) could stay stubbornly wide - at least until there is more decisive evidence that the U.S. economy is in a cyclical slowdown that would put the Fed rate hiking cycle on hold (Chart 14). Chart 13The 'Flow Effect' Of##BR##QE Does Still Matter Chart 14The 'Stock Effect' Could Keep The##BR##UST-Bund Spread Wider For Longer From the point of view of euro area debt, however, the existence of a "stock effect" means that those investors expecting a Taper Tantrum 2.0 will likely be disappointed in the size of any upward move in euro area bond yields this year. Bottom Line: The ECB strongly believes that the "stock effect" of its asset purchases (how much they already own) matters more for European bond yields than the "flow effect" (how much they are buying). This suggests that the odds of a European "Taper Tantrum" later this year are low, although bond yields there are still headed higher. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The Draghi speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html, while the Praet speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_2.en.html 2 Coeure's speech can be found at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180223.en.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights There are many things that central bankers know they don't know. "Known unknowns" include the outlook for growth (both actual and potential), NAIRU, the neutral rate of interest, and the true shape of the Phillips curve. "Unknown unknowns" are, by definition, unknowable, but are often at the heart of economic downturns. Central bankers, like military leaders, tend to fight the last war. They have tirelessly waged a battle against deflation over the past decade, so it is logical to conclude that they will err on the side of keeping monetary policy too loose rather than too tight. This will prolong the recovery, but it also means that economic and financial imbalances will be greater by the time the next downturn rolls around, most likely in 2020. Keep a close eye on credit spreads. Stay overweight risk assets for now, but look to move to neutral later this year and outright underweight in the first half of 2019. Bond yields will fall as the next recession approaches, but they will do so from higher levels than today. Feature Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. - Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush Uncertainty Galore Central bankers know many things. They know that growth is currently strong across most of the world, unemployment is falling and inflation, while still low, has been slowly trending higher. Unfortunately, there are also many things they don't know. These include things they know they don't know, as well as things that are not even on their radar screens - the "unknown unknowns" that Donald Rumsfeld famously warned about. Known Unknowns Let's start with five "known unknowns." 1. Will Growth Stay Strong? Global growth has likely peaked, but should remain comfortably above-trend over the remainder of this year (Chart 1). The OECD's Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has leveled off, while the diffusion index, which tabulates the share of countries with rising LEIs, has dropped below 50 percent. A fall in the diffusion index has often foreshadowed outright declines in the composite LEI. Consistent with this prognosis, the Citi global Economic Surprise Index has swooned, the Chinese Keqiang index has decelerated, and Korean export growth - a leading indicator for global trade - has slowed. Global manufacturing PMIs have also edged off their highs (Chart 2). The one exception is the U.S., where the ISM index continues to power higher. Despite the occasional blip such as this week's retail sales report - which was probably depressed by tax refund delays - recent U.S. economic data have been reasonably upbeat. Goldman Sachs' Current Activity Indicator remains near cycle highs, implying strong momentum going into the second quarter. Chart 1Global Growth Has Peaked ##br##But Will Remain Above Trend Chart 2Global Manufacturing PMIs ##br##Are Off Their Highs Changes in financial conditions tend to lead growth by about six-to-nine months. U.S. financial conditions have eased a lot more since the start of 2017 than elsewhere (Chart 3). In addition, U.S. fiscal policy is likely to be much more expansionary over the next two years than in the rest of the world (Chart 4). All this suggests that the composition of global growth will shift in favor of the U.S. over the coming months. Chart 3Composition Of Global ##br##Growth Will Shift To The U.S. ... Chart 4U.S. Fiscal Policy Will Become More ##br##Expansionary Than In R.O.W. 2. Will Potential Growth Accelerate? The U.S. unemployment rate has declined from a high of 10% in 2009 to 4.1% in February 2018, even though real GDP growth has averaged a meager 2.2% over this period. Extremely weak productivity growth explains why the output gap has managed to contract in the face of subdued GDP growth. Sluggish capital spending has exacerbated the productivity downturn, but probably did not cause it. Chart 5 shows that productivity growth began to decelerate well before the financial crisis erupted. The slowdown has been pervasive across countries and sectors. Economists have a poor track record of predicting productivity trends. Not only did they fail to predict the productivity revival in the late 1990s, but because of data lags and subsequent revisions, they did not even know it had happened until the early 2000s. It is too early to say whether robotics and AI will yield the same sort of productivity windfall that the Internet did. My colleagues, Mark McClellan and Brian Piccioni, have cast a skeptical eye on some of the alleged revolutionary breakthroughs in both fields.1 If it turns out that the late 1990s was the exception rather than the rule, and that we are going back to the lackluster productivity performance of the 1970s, this will make life more challenging for central bankers. 3. What Is The True Level Of NAIRU? Spare capacity has diminished in most countries, but questions linger over how much slack remains. No one truly knows where NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - really stands. The Fed and the Congressional Budget Office believe that NAIRU has fallen from over 6% in the late 1970s to around 4.5%-to-4.7% today (Chart 6). Chart 5Productivity Growth Slowdown ##br##Has Been Pervasive Chart 6NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards An aging workforce has reduced frictional unemployment because older workers are less likely to switch jobs than younger ones. The internet has also made it easier for employers to find suitably qualified workers. On the flipside, globalization, automation, and the opioid crisis have likely made it difficult for a growing list of workers to hold down a job for long. Our best guess is that the U.S. economy is operating at close to full employment. This is confirmed by various employer surveys, which show that companies are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 7). The fact that the share of people outside the labor force who want a job has fallen to pre-recession levels also suggests that labor slack is running thin (Chart 8). Chart 7U.S. Economy: Operating At ##br##Close To Full Employment Chart 8Few People Left Who Are Eager ##br##To Rejoin The Labor Force There is more slack outside the United States. Labor underutilization is still 2.5 percentage points higher in the euro area than it was in 2008. Taking Germany out of the picture, labor underutilization is nearly six points higher (Chart 9). A number of major emerging markets, most notably Brazil and Russia, also have a lot of excess cyclical unemployment. The Japanese labor market has tightened significantly in recent years, but there is probably a fair amount of hidden underemployment left, particularly in the service sector (factoid of the week: there are more police officers in Tokyo than in New York City).2 4. Where Is The Neutral Rate Of Interest? One of the most vexing questions facing central banks is how high interest rates can go before they move into restrictive territory. There are a variety of reasons for thinking that the neutral real rate of interest - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - is lower today than it was in the past. Trend real GDP growth has fallen. This has reduced the need for firms to expand capacity. The shift to a capital-lite economy - where value-added increasingly takes the form of bits and bytes rather than factory output - has further reduced the need for fresh investment. Meanwhile, a reluctance to take on new debt has restrained spending. Rising inequality has shifted more wealth into the hands of people who tend to save a lot. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired savings go up and desired investment goes down, interest rates must fall to push down the former and push up the latter (Chart 10). Chart 9Euro Area: There Is Still Labor ##br##Market Slack Outside Of Germany Chart 10Interest Rates Must Fall If Desired Savings ##br##Increase And Desired Investment Declines None of these forces are immutable, however. Investment demand appears to be picking up, as judged by capex intention surveys (Chart 11). Consumer credit is rising anew. The U.S. personal saving rate is back near an all-time low (Chart 12). A tighter labor market is likely to cause labor's share of income to rise, just like it did in the late 1990s (Chart 13). This should boost aggregate demand. An unprecedented increase in the U.S. budget deficit should help absorb much of the savings from cash-rich corporations (Chart 14). Meanwhile, savings are likely to decline over the long haul as well-paid baby boomers retire en masse. All this is causing the neutral rate to move higher. Chart 11Upswing In Global Capex Is Underway Chart 12U.S. Consumer Credit Revival Chart 13Tight Labor Market And Rising Labor ##br##Share Of Income: A Replay Of The 1990s? Chart 14Now Is The Time For Fiscal Consolidation, Not Profligacy 5. What Is The Shape Of The Phillips Curve? Central bankers assume that dwindling spare capacity will lead to higher inflation, a relationship immortalized by the so-called Phillips curve. The fact that inflation has barely risen over the past few years is an obvious challenge to this theory. It may simply be that the Phillips curve is "kinked" at very low levels - it only steepens when the economy has gone beyond full employment. The fact that it has taken this long to reach the kink could explain why inflation has not taken off sooner. The success that central banks have enjoyed in anchoring long-term inflation expectations is another reason why the Phillips curve has become flatter. Chart 15An Overheated Economy Led To ##br##Rising Inflation In The 1960s The problem is that there is no God-given reason why inflation expectations should stay well anchored. Core inflation was remarkably low and stable in the first half of the 1960s. However, the combination of low real interest rates and increased fiscal spending associated with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs and the Vietnam War led to a surge in inflation starting in 1966 (Chart 15). Inflation kept climbing thereafter, rising to 6% in 1970. This was three years before the first oil shock occurred, suggesting that an overheated economy, rather than OPEC, was the main inflationary culprit. Unknown Unknowns Then there are the things central bankers are not even thinking about, or even worse, the things they think are true but aren't.3 In the lead-up to the Great Recession, U.S. policymakers blithely assumed that house prices could not fall at the nationwide level. This caused them to turn a blind eye to soaring home prices and the deterioration of underwriting standards in the mortgage market. Warren Buffet once said, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." Our guess is that rising rates will expose a lot of things one would rather not see in the corporate debt market. In the latest issue of the Bank Credit Analyst, my colleague Mark McClellan estimated that the interest coverage ratio for U.S. companies would drop from 4 to 2.5 if rates increased by 100 basis points across the corporate curve. Such a move would take the coverage ratio to the lowest level in the 30-year history of our sample (Chart 16A and Chart 16B).4 Consumer staples, tech, and health care would be the most adversely affected. Chart 16AU.S. Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Breakdown By Sector (I) Chart 16BU.S. Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Breakdown By Sector (II) Political shocks are also very difficult for policymakers to foresee. President Trump's decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs spooked the markets. NAFTA negotiations remain stalled and the odds are high that the U.S. will pursue trade sanctions against China for alleged intellectual property theft. That said, as we noted last week, an all-out trade war would cause equities to crater.5 Trump remains focused on the value of the stock market as a gauge of the success of his presidency. This will curb his hawkishness. Unemployment is also very low these days, which limits the attractiveness of protectionist policies. The specter of trade wars will escalate if a recession causes stocks to tumble and unemployment to rise in key midwestern swing states. Other "unknown unknowns" include another flare-up in sovereign debt markets in Europe, a hard landing in China, and a supply-induced spike in oil prices. Investment Conclusions It may be tempting to think that central banks can calibrate monetary policy as events unfold in order to keep economies on an even keel. If only it were so easy. Monetary policy affects the economy with a lag of 12-to-24 months. By the time it is clear that either more or less monetary stimulus is needed, it is often too late to act. Central bankers have to work with incomplete or inaccurate data. One of the reasons that inflation spiraled out of control in the 1970s was because the Federal Reserve systematically overstated the size of the output gap (Chart 17). This led the Fed to falsely conclude that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a deceleration in the economy's supply-side potential. It is impossible to know what mistakes central banks will make in the future, but it is almost certain that something will go awry. Central bankers, like military leaders, tend to fight the last war. They have tirelessly waged a battle against deflation over the past decade, so it is logical to conclude that they will err on the side of keeping monetary policy too loose rather than too tight. This will prolong the recovery, but it also means that economic and financial imbalances will be greater by the time the next downturn rolls around. As we discussed several weeks ago, the next recession is most likely to arrive in 2020.6 Investors should stay overweight risk assets for now, but look to move to neutral later this year and outright underweight in the first half of 2019. Bond yields will fall as the next recession approaches, but they will do so from higher levels than today. Similar to the 1970s, investors should expect inflation and bond yields to make a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" with every boom/bust episode (Chart 18). Chart 17The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Chart 18A Template For The Next Decade? Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017; The Bank Credit Analyst, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017; and The Bank Credit Analyst, "The Impact Of Robots On Inflation," dated January 25, 2018. 2 "As crime dries up, Japan's police hunt for things to do," The Economist, May 18, 2017. 3 Mark Twain is often credited for saying that "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." It's a great quote, but there's only one problem: There is no evidence that he ever said it. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector," dated February 22, 2018. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A," dated March 9, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," dated February 23, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Data based on Bloomberg/Barclays global treasury/aggregate indexes from December 1990 to January 2018 supports the argument that foreign government bonds are not worthy of investing in when unhedged, due to extremely high volatility. On a hedged basis, however, foreign bonds are a good source of risk reduction for bond portfolios. Hedging not only reduces volatility of a foreign government bond portfolio, it reduces it so much that on a risk adjusted-return basis, foreign government bonds outperform both domestic government bonds and domestic credit for investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., the U.S. and Canada. Aussie and kiwi fixed income investors stand out as the biggest beneficiaries of investing overseas, because hedged foreign government bonds not only provide lower volatility compared to domestic bonds, but also higher returns. This empirical evidence does not support the strong home bias of Aussie and kiwi investors. Investors in the euro area also benefit from the risk reduction of hedged foreign exposure. However, they also suffer significant return reduction - such that the improvement in risk-adjusted returns is not significant. Investors in Japan do enjoy higher returns from foreign government bonds, hedged and unhedged, yet at the cost of much higher volatility, with risk-adjusted returns also not justifying investing overseas. This empirical finding does not lend support to the "search for yield" strategy that has been very popular among Japanese investors. Feature Practitioners and academics do not often agree with one another on investment management issues, but when it comes to whether to hedge foreign government bonds, both accept that foreign government bonds should be fully hedged because currency volatility overwhelms bond volatility. Yet hedged total returns from foreign government bonds are very similar to those from domestic bonds for investors in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, while worse in the euro area. Only in Japan, Australia and New Zealand do investors enjoy higher hedged returns from investing in foreign bonds, as shown in Chart 1 based on Bloomberg/Barclays Global Treasury Indexes hedged to their respective home currencies. So why do investors in the U.S., U.K. and euro area, whose own government bond markets currently account for about 60% of the global treasury index universe (Chart 2), even bother to invest in foreign government bonds? Even for those who may achieve higher returns overseas, would they not be better off just buying domestic corporate bonds (for the potentially higher returns from taking domestic credit risk) rather than venturing into foreign countries and taking the trouble to hedge currency risk? Indeed, home bias among bond investors globally is a lot higher than among equity investors. Chart 1Domestic Vs. Foreign Bonds Chart 2Country Weights In Global Treasury Index In this report, we present empirical evidence based on Bloomberg/Barclays domestic treasury indexes and aggregate bond indexes, hedged and unhedged global treasury indexes in seven different currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD and NZD), in the context of strategic asset allocation. In a future report, we will attempt to identify the driving forces underpinning the decisions between investing in domestic bonds versus foreign bonds in the context of tactical asset allocation. Hedged Foreign Government Bonds Are a Good Source Of Diversification When a foreign bond is hedged back to the domestic currency, its total return correlation with domestic bonds is quite high. As shown in Chart 3, domestic bonds and their respective hedged foreign bonds have an average correlation of around 70% for all currencies, with the exception of the JPY. For Japanese investors, hedged foreign bonds have a much lower correlation with JGBs, averaging around 30%. Intuitively, there should not be a high incentive for USD, GBP, CAD, EUR, AUD and NZD based investors to invest in foreign bonds, while JPY based investors should benefit from the diversification of hedged foreign bonds. In reality, the very high home bias among fixed income investors in general and the popularity of search-for-yield carry trades among Japanese individual investors seems to support this. Is there empirical evidence that shows the same thing? Table 1 presents statistics from Bloomberg/Barclays domestic treasury indexes and their respective market cap-weighted foreign treasury indexes, hedged and unhedged, in USD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD and NZD. Please see Appendix 1 for the hedged return calculation. Chart 3High Correlations Table 1Domestic And Foreign Government Bond Profile (Dec 1999 - Jan 2018) On an unhedged basis, foreign bonds have much higher volatility compared to domestic bonds for all investors. In terms of return, only Japanese investors enjoy higher yields overseas. On a risk-adjusted return basis, all investors are worse off in investing in unhedged foreign bonds. This is in line with the "conventional wisdom" acknowledged by both academics and practitioners. Hedging not only reduces the corresponding foreign bond portfolio's volatility, it reduces it so much, for all currencies other than the JPY, that the foreign bond portfolio has lower volatility than domestic bonds. As such, in terms of risk-adjusted return, hedged foreign bonds outperform domestic government bonds in all countries except Japan. This implies that on a risk-adjusted return basis, Japanese investors should not invest in hedged foreign bonds at all, while other investors should. Even more shockingly, Table 1 shows that AUD and NZD investors would have achieved both higher returns and lower volatility by investing in hedged foreign bonds. These implications appear to fly in the face of common sense for AUD and NZD investors, because their domestic bonds have much higher returns than others, while in reality Japanese retail investors are keen on "carry trades" as a way to enhance yields. What has caused such significant discrepancies? Could it be simply due to the time period chosen? Chart 4 and Chart 5 present the results of the same analysis performed over different periods: the whole period from 1990, when the majority of the Bloomberg/Barclays indexes first became available; pre-euro (1990-2000); after the euro and before the global financial crisis (GFC); and after the GFC (the extremely low-yield period). Surprisingly, the relative performance of hedged foreign bonds versus domestic bonds for each currency has been quite consistent across all the time periods in terms of risk-adjusted returns, even though absolute performance varied in different periods. Chart 4Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time (1) Chart 5Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time (2) So when it comes to investing in hedged foreign government bonds, investors with different home currencies should bear the following observations in mind: For Japanese investors, the slightly higher yield enhancement from hedged foreign bonds comes with sharply higher volatility compared to JGBs. The risk-adjusted return does not justify investing in foreign bonds.1 This is mostly because Japanese bonds have below-average volatility, while hedged foreign bonds have above-average volatility. For euro area investors, the lower volatility from foreign bonds is at the expense of lower returns. The improvement in risk-adjusted returns is not significant enough to justify the extra work in hedging. U.K. gilts have the highest volatility. As such, U.K. investors have benefited the most in risk reduction from buying hedged foreign bonds, to the slight detriment of returns. Consequently, they are better off investing in hedged foreign government bonds if improving risk-adjusted return is the objective. The Aussie and kiwi government bond markets are very small in terms of market cap (Chart 2). Fortunately, hedged foreign bonds not only have lower volatility than domestic bonds, they also provide much higher returns. Indeed, Aussie and kiwi investors are the most suitable candidates for going global. For U.S. and Canadian investors, hedged foreign portfolios and domestic indexes share similar returns, but foreign portfolios have much lower volatility, hence better risk-adjusted returns. Hedging currencies is not an easy task. Would investors not be better off taking domestic credit risks than investing in hedged foreign government bonds? Domestic Credit Or Hedged Foreign Government Bonds? The Bloomberg/Barclays domestic aggregate bond indexes are comprised of treasuries, government-related, corporate, and securitized bonds. Chart 6 shows the total returns of the aggregate bond indexes and the corresponding treasury weights in each country index. It is clear that Japan's credit portion is very small, while the U.S. and Canadian credit markets dominate their corresponding treasury markets. In the euro area and Australia, credit accounts for about half of the aggregate index, while it is only about 30% in the U.K. Since some aggregate indexes have a short history (Chart 6), we use the corresponding treasury index to fill in the missing links. In the case of New Zealand, an aggregate index does not exist at all, local treasury bonds are used instead in our analysis below. Table 2 presents the risk/return profiles of the Bloomberg/Barclays domestic aggregate bond indexes, and the same market cap-weighted global treasury index hedged and unhedged in USD JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD and NZD. Chart 6Aggregate Bond Index Composition Table 2Domestic Aggregate Bond Index Vs. Hedged Global Treasury Index (Dec 1999 - Jan 2018) Domestic credits also improve the risk-adjusted returns for all the investors, and for investors in the U.S., Canada and Australia, credits also add returns while reducing volatility compared to their respective treasury indexes. However, the hedged global treasury index has much lower volatility than the domestic aggregate index such that on a risk-adjusted-return basis, the hedged global treasury index still outperforms the local aggregate index for all investors except those in Japan and the euro area. Similar to the findings in the previous section, this observation also holds true across all the time periods as shown in Charts 7 and 8. Aussie and kiwi investors stand out again as the best beneficiaries of going global because the hedged global treasury indexes not only have lower volatility than the domestic aggregate bond indexes, they also provide higher returns. Chart 7Domestic Aggregate Vs. Global Treasury: Consistent Performance Across Time (3) Chart 8Domestic Aggregate Vs. Global Treasury: Consistent Performance Across Time (4) This raises an interesting question for asset allocators: which bond index should one use to measure the performances of global bond managers? It is common for some pension funds and mutual funds to use a domestic aggregate bond index as a benchmark to measure their bond managers' performance. In such a case, what are you really paying for if your managers have the discretion to buy hedged foreign government bonds? Another interesting observation is that the hedged global treasury index has almost the same volatility around 2.85% in different currencies. This essentially levels out the playing-field for bond managers globally in terms of volatility, a very important criteria for bond investors. Is High Home Bias Justifiable? There are many well-known reasons that explain why home bias in bond portfolios is typically high. But are investors giving up too much for the comfort of "staying home"? Chart 9 shows the effects of adding hedged foreign government bonds into a portfolio of domestic aggregate bonds for each investor based on two timeframes - from 1990 and from 1999 to the present. The messages are clear: If investors are comfortable with the volatility in their domestic aggregate bond index, which is already a lot lower than equities, then investors in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and the euro area are better off staying home for higher returns without dealing with currency hedging operations. For Aussie, kiwi and Japanese investors, however, going abroad enhances returns. Chart 9Is High Home Bias Justifiable? If investors focus on lower volatility, then all investors should invest a large portion of their portfolios overseas, with the exception of Japanese investors. If investors focus on risk-adjusted returns, then investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., the U.K., the euro area and Canada are better off investing a large portion overseas. In short, while there may be some justification for most fixed-income investors to maintain a home bias, empirical evidence does not lend strong support to Aussie and kiwi investors having a home bias at all. Chart 9 shows that Australian and New Zealand investors should consider investing 70-90% of their fixed income portfolio in hedged foreign government bonds for higher returns and lower volatility. Implications For Asset Allocators Chart 10What Drives The Dynamics Between ##br## Foreign And Domestic Bonds? The analysis presented in this report is by nature based on historical data. The findings may not apply to the future, especially because the periods for which we have data cover only the great bull market in government bonds. However, this exercise does provide some interesting aspects for consideration: Should hedged foreign government bonds have a presence in strategic asset allocation? If your fixed income managers have the discretion to invest in foreign government bonds, then is it appropriate for you to use a domestic aggregate bond index to measure their performance? In the context of strategic asset allocation, the answer to the first question is yes and to the second is no, as implied by the analysis in this report. In the context of tactical asset allocation, however, the answer may well be different. In a later report, we will attempt to identify the factors that drive the dynamics between domestic and hedged foreign bonds because the most obvious factor, interest rate differentials, cannot fully explain it as shown in Chart 10. Stay tuned. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com 1 Granted, Japanese retail investors do not pay attention to risk adjusted returns as much as institutional investors do. Therefore their buying unhedged foreign bonds is consistent with their yield enhancement objective, albeit at much higher volatility. Appendix 1: Bond Hedged Return Calculation We use the same methodology as Bloomberg/Barclays1 to calculate hedged return using one-month forward contracts and re-balancing on a monthly basis. This is unlike equity hedging, where the gain or loss of the underlying index during the month is not hedged.2 A bond index can be reasonably assumed to grow at the nominal yield (yield to worst is used). Only the gain/loss that is different from the stated yield during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. Hedged return using forward contract: 1+Rd,t+1= (Pt+1 * St+1 ) / (Pt * St ) + Ht*(Ft - St+1)/ St..............................................(1) Where: Pt and Pt+1 are the foreign bond total return index levels at time t and t+1 in corresponding foreign currencies; St and St+1 are the foreign currency exchange rates versus the domestic currency at time t and t+1, quoted as one unit of foreign currency equal to how many units of domestic currency; Ht = (1 + Yt/2)(1/6) is the hedged notional; Yt is the yield to worst; Ft is the foreign currency's one-month forward rate at time t for delivery at time t+1; Rd,t+1 is the hedged total return in domestic currency of the foreign hedge index between time t and t+1. 1 https://www.bbhub.io/indices/sites/2/2017/03/Index-Methodology-2017-03-17-FINAL-FINAL.pdf 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com

Highlights BCA's view is that while a major trade war is unlikely, trade tensions will persist. The Fed, not protectionism, will end the cycle. There have been five episodes in the past 35 years when global growth surged and fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy were all aligned to boost the U.S. economy. The March Beige Book keeps the Fed on track to hike four times this year. Feature The Trump Administration's announcement last week to slap hefty tariffs on steel and aluminum runs the risk of provoking a "tit-for-tat" trade war. This proposed levy follows a similar move earlier this year to impose tariffs on washers and solar panels. The EU has retaliated with a threat to introduce tariffs on Harley Davidson motorcycles and Levi's jeans. Even if a trade war develops, our Global Investment Strategy team notes1 that the U.S. would suffer less in a trade war than other nations, and that higher tariffs may lead to more domestic demand, a more aggressive Fed and a stronger dollar. Certainly, the tariff issue does not signal the end of the U.S. economic expansion or equity bull market. BCA's view is that while a major trade war is unlikely, trade tensions will persist. Our Geopolitical Strategy service states2 that investors should closely monitor bellwether factors for trade policies, including Trump's position on NAFTA, exemptions granted on the steel and aluminum tariffs to countries (such as Mexico and Canada) and most importantly, the treatment of intellectual property trade with China. Bottom Line: The end of the equity bull market will probably be due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, and not escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Policy Panacea The backdrop for U.S. economic growth remains solid. Consensus global GDP projections for 2018 and 2019 have perked up, in contrast with prior years when forecasters issued relentless lower GDP estimates (Chart 1). Moreover, global exports growth is in a persistent uptrend since the earlier part of 2016 (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. & Global Growth Expectations Are Still Accelerating The surge in global growth occurs even as China's economy is poised to slow. Among the components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (an index designed to lead turning points in the Li Keqiang), all six series are in a downtrend, and five fell in January (the growth in M2 was the exception).3 Although China's economy is decelerating, BCA's view is that a repeat of the late 2015/early 2016 shock is unlikely (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Exports##BR##Are Booming... Chart 3Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests##BR##A Benign Slowdown In Growth In China The U.S. economy and financial markets will benefit from the uptick in global growth, a large dose of fiscal policy, still accommodative monetary policy, and a decline in regulation. Table 1 and Chart 4 show that there have been four other junctures in the past 35 years when these factors all pulled in the same direction to boost the U.S. economy. The current episode of synchronized policy commenced in January 2016. All four previous periods occurred closer to the start and not the end of a business cycle; BCA's stance is that the U.S. economy is in the late stages of an economic expansion that began in 2009. These phases lasted, on average, for just under two years. The current phase is entering its third year. The longest was in the early 2000s (2002-2004), while the shortest was a 14-month interval in the first year of the 1991-2001 economic expansion. Three of the prior four periods ended as fiscal policy turned restrictive. In the early 1980s' chapter, a reversal in global IP signaled the end of the growth sweet spot. Performance Of U.S. Financial Assets, Gold, Oil And Earnings When Global Growth Is Increasing Alongside Stimulative Monetary, Fiscal And Regulatory Policy .... Chart 4Global Growth, Fiscal, Monetary And Regulatory Policy##BR##All Pulling In The Same Direction Not surprisingly, risk assets perform well during these "tailwind" points (Table 1 again and Chart 5). The S&P 500 rose in the previous four periods and again in the current one. However, BCA's stock-to-bond ratio fell in the early 1990s and early 2000s. Credit tends to outperform Treasuries when monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy are synchronized, and small caps outperform large. This is the case in the current episode that began in January 2016. Gold and oil also perform well when global growth is surging, fiscal and monetary policy is stimulative and regulations are on the wane. However, on average, the dollar falls during these intervals as demonstrated in the early 2000s and early 2010s. S&P 500 earnings growth is solid and well above average during these phases. Chart 5U.S. Risk Assets In Periods Of Strong Global Growth And Synchronized Policy Push Table 2 shows that U.S. risk assets tend to struggle in the year after these legs end, but the economy keeps flourishing. Stocks underperformed bonds a year after the end of two of the four periods, but none of those periods coincided with a recession. Investment-grade and high-yield credit underperforms Treasuries in the ensuing 12 months, while small caps struggle to keep up with large. Gold performs well in three of the four periods, but oil posts a mixed performance. The dollar rises and S&P 500 earnings per share increase in the year after stretches of synchronous policy, but at a much slower pace than when the stimulative fiscal policy, deregulation and easy monetary policy are all in place. Table 2... What Happens In The 12 Months After These Episodes End... Tighter Fed policy will end the current era of pro-growth policies. BCA's stance is that the Fed will raise rates four times this year and another three or four times next year, pushing monetary policy into restrictive territory. U.S. fiscal policy will likely add to growth into the next year, thanks to tax cuts and the lifting of spending caps, and Trump will continue to look for deregulation opportunities. Bottom Line: Fed tightening will end the latest era of deregulation, easy monetary policy and stimulative fiscal policy, but not until early next year. Until then, a favorable backdrop will persist for stocks over bonds, credit, S&P 500 earnings and oil. Stay long stocks and credit, and underweight duration. This forecast assumes that the trade spat does not degenerate into a trade war. If that occurs, we would recommend reducing our overweight to risk assets sooner than early next year. Beige Book: More Tailwinds Fed Chair Powell's February 27 testimony to Congress noted that "some of the headwinds the U.S. economy faced in previous years have turned into tailwinds."4 The Beige Book released on March 7 highlights many of those tailwinds, keeps the Fed on track to boost rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's quantitative approach5 to the Beige Book's qualitative data points to underlying strength in GDP and a tighter labor market. Furthermore, the disconnect between the Beige Book's view of inflation and the market's stance has eased. Moreover, references to a stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book and business uncertainty is significantly reduced, reflecting the tax cut bill and Trump's assault on regulation. The latest Beige Book ran from mid-January to February 26 and, therefore, did not capture the business community's reaction to the tariff announcement in early March. Chart 6, panel 1 shows that at 67% in March, BCA's Beige Book Monitor stayed near its cycle highs, which reconfirms that the underlying economy was upbeat in early 2018. The number of 'weak' words in the Beige Book returned to near four-year lows after ticking higher in the wake of last summer's hurricanes. Moreover, there were 15 mentions of the tax bill in the March Beige Book, up from 12 in January and only 3 in November 2017 (not shown). The tax bill was cast in a positive light in 87% of the remarks in March versus 75% in January. In November, the references to either the tax bill (or tax reform) cited the consequent uncertainty as a constraint on growth. Chart 6Latest Beige Book Supports##BR##The Fed's View On Rates, Inflation And Economy Based on the minimal references to a robust dollar in the past six Beige Books, the greenback should not be an issue in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018. This sharply contrasts with 2015 and early 2016 when there were surges in Beige Book mentions (Chart 6, panel 4). The last time that six consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) multiplied in the past few Beige Books as Congress debated the tax bill. However, in general, these comments have dropped since Trump took office in early 2017. The implication is that the business community is correctly focused on policy and not politics in D.C. (Chart 6, panel 5). However, the controversy associated with the tariffs on steel and aluminum will add to business unease in the coming months unless Trump reverses his position. The disagreement between the Fed and the market on inflation narrowed in the March edition of the Beige Book (Chart 6, panel 3). The number of inflation words in the Beige Book rose to an 8 month high in March, reflecting the abrupt change in sentiment on inflation in early 2018 both in the business community and the market. In the past year, inflation words in the Beige Book climbed as the readings on CPI and PCE rolled over. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The March Beige Book supports BCA's view that the U.S. economy is poised to expand above its long-term potential in the first half of 2018. Moreover, the elevated soundings on inflation in the Beige Book in recent years have again proved prescience, as price measures are poised to turn higher. While the first few Beige Books in 2018 showed that the business and financial communities welcomed tax cut legislation, the next edition will likely reflect elevated concern over the nation's trade policies. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A", published March 9, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", published March 6, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation", published March 7, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/powell20180226a.htm 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues," published April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, Following up on last week's report, my colleagues Caroline Miller, Mathieu Savary, and I held a webcast on Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent events. If you haven't already, I hope you find the time to listen in. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Protectionism is popular with the American public in general, and Trump's base specifically. The sabre-rattling will persist, but an all-out trade war is unlikely. Trump is focused on the stock market, and equities would suffer mightily if a trade war broke out. The Pentagon has also warned of the dangers of across-the-board tariffs that penalize America's military allies. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. That's not the case today. The equity bull market will eventually end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Feature Q: What prompted Trump's announcement? A: Last week began with President Trump proclaiming that he would seek re-election in 2020. Then came a slew of negative news, including the resignation of Hope Hicks, Trump's White House communications director, and the downgrading of Jared Kushner's security clearance. All this happened against the backdrop of the ever-widening Mueller probe. Trump needed to change the subject. Fast. However, it would be a mistake to think that the tariff announcement was simply a distractionary tactic. Turmoil in the White House might have been the immediate trigger, but events had been building towards this outcome for some time. The Trump administration had imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January. Hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum - two industries that had suffered heavy job losses over the past two decades - was a logical next step. In fact, the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum were similar to the 24% and 7.7% tariff rates, respectively, that the Commerce Department proposed as one of three options on February 16th.1 Protectionism is popular with the American public. This is especially true for Trump's base (Chart 1). Indeed, it is safe to say that Trump's unorthodox views on trade are what handed him the Republican nomination and what allowed him to win key swing (and manufacturing) states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made a promise to his voters. He is trying to keep it. Q: Wouldn't raising trade barriers hurt the U.S. economy, thereby harming the same workers Trump is trying to help? A: That's the line coming from the financial press and most of the political establishment, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. An all-out trade war would undoubtedly hurt the U.S., but a minor skirmish probably would not. The U.S. does run a large trade deficit. Economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney recently estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the U.S. economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation.2 This accords with other studies, such as the one by David Autor and his colleagues, which found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 2).3 Chart 1Trump Is Catering ##br##To His Protectionist Base Chart 2China's Ascent Has Reduced##br## U.S. Manufacturing Employment Granted, China does not even make it into the top ten list of countries that export steel to the United States. But that is somewhat beside the point. As with most commodities, there is a fairly well-integrated global market for steel. Due to its proximity to Asian markets, China exports most of its steel to the rest of the region (Chart 3). That does not stop Chinese overcapacity from dragging down prices around the world. Chart 3Most Of China's Steel Exports Don't Travel That Far Q: Wouldn't steel and aluminum tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers, thereby reducing real wages? A: That depends. If Trump's gambit reduces the U.S. trade deficit, this will increase domestic spending, putting more upward pressure on wages. As far as prices are concerned, the U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and an additional $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. And even that would be a one-off hit to the price level, rather than a permanent increase in the inflation rate. In practice, it is doubtful that prices would rise by the full amount of the tariff (if they did, what would be the purpose of retaliatory measures?). Most econometric studies suggest that producers will absorb about half of the tariff in the form of lower profit margins. To the extent that this reduces the pre-tariff price of imported goods, it would shift the terms of trade in America's favor. Chart 4Does Trade Retaliation Make Sense ##br## When Most Trade Is In Intermediate Goods? There is an old economic theory, first elucidated by Robert Torrens in the 19th century, which says that the optimal tariff is always positive for countries such as the U.S. that are price-makers rather than price-takers in international markets. Put more formally, Torrens showed that an increase in tariffs from very low levels was likely to raise government revenue and producer surplus by more than the loss in consumer surplus. So, in theory, the U.S. could actually benefit at the expense of the rest of the world by imposing higher tariffs.4 Q: This assumes that there is no trade retaliation. How realistic is that? A: That's the key. As noted above, a breakdown of the global trading system would hurt the U.S., but a trade spat could help it. Trump was trying to scare the opposition by tweeting "trade wars are good, and easy to win." In a game of chicken, it helps to convince your opponent that you are reckless and nuts. Trump's detractors would say he is both, so that works in his favor. Trump has another thing working for him. Most trade these days is in intermediate goods (Chart 4). It does not pay for Mexico to slap tariffs on imported U.S. intermediate goods when those very same goods are assembled into final goods in Mexico - creating jobs for Mexican workers in the process - and re-exported to the U.S. or the rest of the world. The same is true for China and many other countries. This does not preclude the imposition of targeted retaliatory tariffs. The EU has threatened to raise tariffs on Levi's jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles (whose headquarters, not coincidently, is located in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district). We would not be surprised if high-end foreign-owned golf courses were also subject to additional scrutiny! But if this is all that happens, markets won't care. The fact that the United States imports much more than it exports also gives Trump a lot of leverage. Take the case of China. Chinese imports of goods and services are 2.65% of U.S. GDP, but exports to China are only 0.96% of GDP. And nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China are agricultural products and raw materials (Chart 5). Taxing them would be difficult without raising Chinese consumer prices. Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose less from a trade war than most other countries. Chart 5China Stands To Lose More From A Trade War With The U.S. Q: Couldn't China and other countries punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys? A: They could, but why would they? Such an action would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart, strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. Chart 6Slowing Global Growth Is Bullish##br## For The Dollar Q: So the dollar could strengthen as a result of rising protectionism? A: Yes, it could. This is a point that even Mario Draghi made at yesterday's ECB press conference. If higher tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit, this will increase U.S. aggregate demand. The boost to demand would be amplified if more companies decide to relocate production back to the U.S. for fear of being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market. The U.S. economy is now operating close to full employment. Anything that adds to demand is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. That could lead to a stronger greenback. Considering that the U.S. is a fairly closed economy which runs a trade deficit, it would suffer less than other economies in the event of a trade war. A scenario where global growth slows because of rising trade tensions, while the composition of that growth shifts towards the U.S., would be bullish for the dollar (Chart 6). Q: What are the implications for stocks and bonds? A: Wall Street will dictate what happens to stocks, but Main Street will dictate what happens to bonds. The stock market hates protectionism, so it is no surprise that equities sold off last week. It is this fact that ultimately got Trump to soften his position. Trump is used to taking credit for a rising stock market. If stocks flounder, this could make him think twice about pushing for higher trade barriers. As far as bonds are concerned, they will react to whatever happens to growth and inflation. As noted above, a trade skirmish could actually boost growth and inflation. Given that the economy is near full capacity, the latter is likely to rise more than the former. This, too, could cause Trump to cool his heels. After all, if higher inflation pushes up bond yields, this will hurt highly-levered sectors such as, you guessed it, real estate. Q: In conclusion, where do you see things going from here? A: Trade frictions will continue. As my colleague Marko Papic highlighted in a report published earlier this week, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain on the ropes for some time.5 The Trump administration is also investigating allegations of Chinese IP theft. The U.S. is a major exporter of intellectual property, but these exports would be much larger if U.S. companies were properly compensated for their ingenuity. Chinese imports of U.S. intellectual property were less than 0.1% of Chinese GDP in 2017, an implausibly small number (Chart 7). If China is found to have acted unfairly, this could lead the U.S. to impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on inbound foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, as noted above, worries about a plunging stock market will constrain Trump from acting too aggressively. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. Today, firms are struggling to find qualified staff (Chart 8). This suggest that Trump will stick to doing what he does best, which is taking credit for everything good that happens under the sun. Chart 7China Is Importing More IP From The U.S., ##br##But The "True" Number Is Probably Higher Chart 8Protectionism Makes Less Sense ##br##When The Labor Market Is Strong Ironically, the latest trade skirmish is occurring at a time when the Chinese government is taking concerted steps to reduce excess capacity in the steel sector, and the profits of U.S. steel producers are rebounding smartly (Chart 9). In fact, the latest Fed Beige Book released earlier this week highlighted that "steel producers reported raising selling prices because of a decline in market share for foreign steel ..."6 Chart 9Chinese Steel Exports Falling, U.S. Steel Profits Rising Meanwile, German automakers already produce nearly 900,000 vehicles in the U.S., 62% of which are exported. In fact, European automakers have a smaller share of the U.S. market than U.S. automakers have of the European one.7 A lot of what Trump wants he already has. The Pentagon has also warned that trade barriers imposed against Canada and other U.S. military allies could undermine America's standing abroad. This is an important point, considering that Trump invoked the rarely used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the President broad control over trade policy in matters of national security, to justify raising tariffs. Trump tends to listen to his generals, if not his other advisors. He probably was not expecting their reaction. All this suggests that a major trade war is unlikely to occur. As we go to press, it appears that the White House will temporarily exclude Canada and Mexico from the list of countries subject to tariffs. We suspect that the EU, Australia, South Korea, and a number of other economies will get some relief as well. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has also said that some "exemptions" may be granted for specific categories of steel and aluminum products that are deemed necessary to U.S. businesses. That is a potentially very broad basket. The bottom line is that the equity bull market will end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances met with restrictive monetary policy, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House," U.S. Department of Commerce, February 16, 2018. 2 Katharine G. Abraham, and Kearney, Melissa S., "Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 24333, (February 2018). 3 David H. Autor, Dorn, David and Hanson, Gordon H., "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 4 A graphical illustration of this point is provided here. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018. 6 Please see "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve District,"Federal Reserve, dated March 7, 2018. 7 Please see Erik F. Nielsen, "Chief Economist's Comment: Sunday Wrap," UniCredit Research, dated March 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The direct impact of recently proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. In isolation, this development is not very relevant for investment strategy. However, the lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Feature The looming threat of U.S. protectionism came into full force over the past week, as President Trump stated that sweeping tariffs on all U.S. imports of steel and aluminum would soon be formalized. The tariff situation continues to evolve as we go to press, but the facts as they currently stand are the following: The proposed tariffs would be 25% on steel, and 10% on aluminum imports No exceptions are planned for any country, although statements from U.S. leadership on Monday suggested that Canada and Mexico may be exempt if NAFTA is renegotiated in the U.S.' favor Key European Union leaders threatened to retaliate against the U.S.' proposed tariffs, and the U.S. threatened to counter-retaliate China has taken a more cautious stance on the issue of retaliation, and is strongly seeking to negotiate with the Trump administration Minimal Direct Impact The developments over the past week raise two questions about China's economy that matter for investment strategy: What is the direct impact of the tariffs on China's exports likely to be? What is the implication for global growth? On the first question, the answer is fairly clear that the direct impact is likely to be small. The proposed tariffs do not disproportionately target China, and Chinese exports of steel and aluminum to the U.S. account for less than 0.2% of total exports (Chart 1). Exports of these products to all countries as a share of total exports is still quite small (panel 2). The second question is much more difficult to answer, and it has wide implications for both the Chinese economy and for investment strategy. When approaching the question, it is first important to note that the threat to the global economy from the imposition of the proposed tariffs comes from the potential for a series of retaliations from major trading partners, not the tariffs themselves. U.S. imports of steel and aluminum make up less than 1% of global goods exports, and Chart 2 presents a long-term history of average U.S. tariff rates along with our estimate of the impact of the U.S.' proposal. While the imposition of the announced tariffs would certainly change the trend that has been in place for some time, the rise is not very significant. Critically, even after the tariffs are imposed, U.S. tariffs rates will still be fractional when compared with those that prevailed during the early-1930s, when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act materially exacerbated the Great Depression. Chart 1Chinese Steel And Aluminum Exports##br## Are Not Significant Chart 2We're A Long, Long Way Away##br## From Smoot-Hawley China's cautious stance towards retaliation is, at first blush, an encouraging development, but it may not be as hopeful of a sign as it seems. First, despite a general feeling among investors that China was the intended target of the U.S.' proposed tariffs, a global tariff on steel and aluminum is likely to disproportionately affect developed countries rather than China. It is therefore not surprising that China has signaled a somewhat conciliatory stance. In our view, the likelihood of Chinese retaliation is considerably higher if further tariffs are announced on goods that make up a larger share of their exports. In addition, as we noted above, the European Union has already highlighted some U.S. goods that may be subject to higher retaliatory tariffs in response to the news (which already elicited a threat of counter-retaliation from the U.S.), and both Canada and Mexico have also threatened retaliation if they are not granted an exemption from the proposed tariffs. In our view, these threats should be treated seriously, especially after revisiting the lessons of one of the most famous experiments in game theory. Bottom Line: The direct impact of proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. Retaliation Risk And The Prisoner's Dilemma The dynamics of trade renegotiations can be examined, at least conceptually, through the lens of game theory. It is difficult to model these dynamics precisely because of the complexity of the relationship between trade and potential growth, but it is worth revisiting the lessons learned by the repeated playing of Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the most well-known examples of the application of game theory. To summarize, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario describes two criminals who have been arrested, and whose statement to the authorities affects the manner in which punishment (if any) is distributed between the two of them. The standard payoff structure of the game is set up such that one prisoner is able to largely avoid punishment if (s)he accuses the other of the crime and the other prisoner remains silent, but that both prisoners receive a punishment if they both accuse each other that is greater than the punishment received if they both remain silent (Table 1). Given that tariffs and other forms of trade protectionism can only durably succeed at improving net domestic economic outcomes if they do not result in retaliation, from the perspective of trade renegotiation, accusing the other player in the game of Prisoner's Dilemma is tantamount to restricting trade, and remaining silent is equivalent to allowing existing trade relationships to persist. Table1In The Prisoner's Dilemma, It's Better To Return Defection With Defection The success of strategies employed in repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma was studied most famously by Robert Axelrod in 1980.1 The winning strategy (in both of Axelrod's tournaments) was "Tit for Tat", which follows two very simple rules: cooperate initially, and thereafter copy the other player's decision in the previous round. This strategy has three attributes that Axelrod showed to be highly successful when playing repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma: niceness (not being the first player to accuse/defect/renege), being provocable (responding to defections with in-kind retaliation), and forgiveness (not allowing one-time defections to impact future choices beyond a one-time retaliation). Chart 3 illustrates the performance of the "Tit for Tat" strategy in the first Axelrod tournament, along with the average scores of several other strategies. The most important lesson from both tournaments is summarized nicely in the chart: the average score of a series of "nice" strategies was considerably higher than those that were not nice. But Chart 4 also highlights that niceness is only a relatively successful strategy because of its ability to produce an optimal outcome with other nice strategies: all strategies, nice or not, tend to generate poor outcomes when played against strategies that are not nice. This is because the payoff structure of Prisoner's Dilemma is such that, compared with defection, co-operation makes a player worse off if their opponent defects. Chart 3In Repeated Games Of Prisoner's Dilemma,##br## "Nice" Strategies Pay Off... Chart 4...But Only Because They Do Well Against ##br##Other "Nice" Strategies In the context of global trade, this can be seen as the likelihood of outsized job losses (or the lack of job gains in a protected industry) from a failure to retaliate. The key point for investors is that the most basic lesson of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that market participants should be legitimately concerned about retaliation from the U.S.' trade partners (and subsequent counter-retaliation) if it continues to pursue a protectionist agenda, because it can be a rational response for an individual country even if it leads to poor outcomes for everyone involved. In addition, three assumptions of the Prisoner's Dilemma game are not valid in the real world (or the current environment), which in two of these cases further increases the risk of an iterative exchange of retaliation: Chart 5The U.S. Has A Trade Deficit ##br##With Many Trading Partners In terms of the payoffs associated with the game, Prisoner's Dilemma assumes an equal starting position (of zero "points") on both sides, which is not the case in the current environment. The U.S. has a sizeable trade deficit with the world (Chart 5), and several important trading partners with the U.S. (especially China) maintain significant non-tariffs barriers to trade. Regardless of whether this inequity has been caused by an unfair trading relationship, in the parlance of Axelrod's tournaments, this implies that the U.S. strategy is likely to be not nice due to the perception on the part of the Trump administration of an unequal starting position. The implication is that the odds of an escalation of the imposition of relatively small tariffs into a full-blown trade war are higher than would normally be the case. Prisoner's Dilemma has clear and symmetric payoffs, which is also not the case in the current environment. The Trump administration apparently feels that the payoff to the U.S. of certain trade restrictions is a net positive even assuming retaliation, which raises the possibility of a negative outcome for the global economy. Worryingly, in our view the chances are high that calculations of the net benefit of any trade restriction are being done on a political basis, rather than an economic one. Prisoner's Dilemma assumes that the participants are unable to communicate, which is a limitation that does not exist in a real-world trade negotiation scenario. This lowers the probability that the U.S. and its major trading partners will engage in a spiraling tit-for-tat trade war relative to what the game of Prisoner's Dilemma would imply, even if the recently announced tariffs on steel and aluminum stand and major partners do retaliate. Bottom Line: The lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. No Help From The Domestic Economy A protectionist agenda from the U.S. is also coming at an inconvenient time for Chinese policymakers, even if they were not blindsided by the move. Policymakers already have to contend with managing the impact of renewed reforms on economy's financial and industrial sectors, and the potential addition of the external sector to this list of problems needing attention is unwelcome. While a cooling of the economy was an inevitable result from the government's deleveraging campaign and shadow banking crackdown, Table 2 highlights how broadly leading economic indicators have decelerated. The table presents recent data points for several series that we identified in November Special Report as having leading properties for the Chinese business cycle,2 as well as the most recent month-over-month change, an indication of whether the series is currently above its 12-month moving average, how long this has been the case. Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy Among the components of the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (an index designed to lead turning points in the Li Keqiang index), all six series are in a downtrend and 5 out of these 6 fell in January (the growth in M2 was the exception). A similar story is borne out in the housing price data, with a variety of diffusion indexes having also fallen in January.3 The Caixin Manufacturing PMI remains the one bright spot, having recently risen above its 12-month moving average and having risen in January, in stark contrast to the official PMI (which fell a full point). But as Chart 6 highlights, following the last four episodes when the Caixin PMI exceeded the official PMI by this magnitude, the subsequent trend in the average of the two was down in every case. The implication is that the outlier nature of the current Caixin PMI shown in Table 2 is just that, and not a heralding a major upturn in China's economy. Chart 6The Caixin PMI Is Probably The Noise, Not The Signal Bottom Line: Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Conclusions For Investment Strategy Chart 7 illustrates the decision tree for Chinese stocks that we presented in our first report of the year. While there has been a modest further deterioration in the industrial sector, the pace of the decline is still consistent with the controlled slowdown scenario that we outlined in an October Weekly Report.4 As such, the recent softness in the data is not significant enough to cause us to change our recommended investment strategy. The key change over the past week has been the threat posed by U.S. protectionism to the global economy, which is the very first question to answer in our decision tree. The now high-beta nature of the Chinese stock market underscores that U.S. protectionism can significantly (negatively) impact the relative performance of Chinese equities if it destabilizes the global stock market, even if Chinese exports were to emerge from the exchange relatively unscathed. For now, we judge the likelihood of a full-blown tit-for-tat trade war to be a risk, and thus not a probable event. For now, market participants seem to agree: U.S. and global equities rebounded earlier this week in response to a feeling that the negative repercussions for global growth are likely to be minimal. Nonetheless, this is a risk that needs to be monitored closely, and to facilitate this our Geopolitical Strategy service has highlighted the following three bellwethers that they will be watching in order to judge the likelihood of a major escalation:5 Chart 7The Chinese Equity "Decision Tree" Tariff exceptions for allies: Given the national security basis for the steel and aluminum tariffs, it is likely that exceptions will be made for allies such as Canada and Europe. If yes, then the measure is unlikely to be part of a truly "America First" mercantilist strategy and is instead a veiled swipe at China to satisfy Trump's base ahead of the midterm elections NAFTA: Our geopolitical team has argued that the probability of NAFTA abrogation is around 50%.6 If the administration continues the negotiations in light of tariff announcements, however, it suggests that the revealed preference of the White House is less protectionist than it appears. Chinese intellectual property (IP) theft: The Trump administration is investigating Chinese technology transfer and IP theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. If China is found to have acted unfairly, penalties would likely include a combination of tariffs and restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. This might include an indemnity for cumulative losses from past violations, which would be rare, if not unprecedented, and which China would reject outright. This could produce across-the-board tariffs of a sort that the U.S. has not imposed since the Nixon shock. Chart 8China Is Outperforming Global In Ex-Tech Terms In the meantime, Chart 8 highlights that investable Chinese ex-technology stocks (proxied by the MSCI China Index ex-technology) remain in an uptrend versus their global peers, which underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. This underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. While the ongoing slowdown in China's economy is likely to cause earnings growth to decelerate over the coming year, the continued likelihood of decently positive earnings growth coupled with a sizeable valuation discount relative to global signals that Chinese ex-tech stocks are remain attractive on a risk/reward basis. Investors should stay overweight. Bottom Line: Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 "Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" and "More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" by Robert Axelrod, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24 Nos.1 and 3, March and September 1980. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of The Chinese Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, as discussed in our February 8 Weekly Report, we are keeping an eye on residential floor space sold given its history of leading China's housing market cycles. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto Populism", dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations