Asset Allocation

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of June 30th, 2017. The model has continued to reduce its allocation to the U.S. and now for the first time the U.S. allocation is slightly below benchmark. Within the non-U.S. universe of the 11 countries, the model has also made significant adjustments to shift weights to Italy (now the largest overweight) and Australia (now for the first time it is overweight by the model), while underweight Germany and France. These adjustments are mainly due to liquidity and technical indicators, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 14 bps in June, largely due to the underperformance of Level 2 model where the overweight of the Euro area v.s. the underweight of Australia and Canada hurt the performance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmark by 139 bps. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of June 30, 2017. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model continues to overweight cyclicals versus defensives. Additionally, the model has turned overweight financials and underweight consumer discretionary on the back of momentum. This overweight in financials is now in line with our global sector recommendations published yesterday. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Central Banks: The sharp sell-off in global bond markets last week was triggered by more upbeat comments on growth and inflation by several major central bankers, most notably ECB President Mario Draghi. ECB Tapering: Draghi's positive views on the European economy are generally accurate, which puts the ECB on a path to taper its asset purchases next year. Bunds vs. JGBs: Bund yields have more upside in the next 3-6 months as the market reprices a smaller amount of ECB bond buying. Downgrade core European government bonds to underweight (2 out of 5) and upgrade low-beta Japan to maximum overweight (5 out of 5). Feature "The threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." - Mario Draghi Chart of the WeekA Co-Ordinated Tightening On The Horizon? Bond market volatility awoke with a vengeance last week, as investors digested a string of hawkish comments from previously dovish central banks. A surprisingly optimistic speech from European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi set the tone, triggering the biggest single day rise in German bond yields in over two years. This was followed up by comments from Bank of England (BoE) Governor Mark Carney and Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz suggesting that higher rates may be needed soon in the U.K. and Canada, triggering sell-offs in Gilts and Canadian bonds. Even U.S. Treasury yields rose alongside the global move, without any positive U.S. data or more hawkish Fed commentary. This move to a more hawkish tone - or, at least, a less dovish message - is consistent with the current strength of the global economy, as well as the robust performance of risk assets so far in 2017. Policymakers are now being forced to adjust their biases to reflect the more positive backdrop, forcing a repricing of interest rate expectations with most developed economies hovering around full employment (Chart of the Week). A "coordinated" move to tweak policy rates higher suggests bond yields have more room to rise - especially after the decline since March that has driven most government bond yields to expensive levels. The bigger risk for global bonds, however, will come from a likely shift in ECB policy towards a reduction in the size of their current bond purchase program. As we saw last week, even a mere mention of a need to shift to a less accommodative monetary stance was enough to cause Bund yields to nearly double in a matter of days. We have been positioned for a renewed rise in bond yields through our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. We are also positioned for a bear-steepening of government bond yield curves in our model bond portfolio, as our recommended duration exposures are concentrated in shorter-maturity bonds. With central banks only looking to catch up to the underlying state of the global economy, rather than aiming to more aggressively tighten policy to cool off growth, there is more potential for longer-dated bond yields to rise relative to shorter-maturity debt - especially with market-based inflation expectations now looking too low in most countries. In other words, expect more bear-steepening of global yield curves (ex-Japan) in the next few months. Dissecting Draghi's Speech The jump in global yields last week was broad based, both across countries and when broken down into valuation components. The "high-yielders" among developed markets (U.S., Canada, U.K.), saw modest increases in inflation expectations and term premia, while rate hike expectations jumped sharply in Canada and the U.K. (Chart 2). Among the "low-yielders" (Germany, Japan), the 22bps jump in Bund yields came through higher term premia, with only very modest moves higher in rate hike or inflation expectations (Chart 3). Japanese yields didn't move at all, consistent with the view that the Bank of Japan is the one central bank that does not need to become less accommodative with Japanese core inflation back down to 0%. Chart 2Global Yields Starting To Perk Up A Bit... Chart 3...Led By Europe Mario Draghi's speech, which set off last week's yield spike, was such a shock to markets because of the upbeat description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. It is important to consider where this speech was given - in front of global policymakers at the annual ECB Forum on Central Banking in Portugal (the ECB equivalent to the Fed's annual Jackson Hole conference). The head of the central bank that has been providing the highest degree of monetary stimulus among the major economies over the past couple of years told his global peers that the need for such an extreme accommodative policy stance was now diminished. This is a message shared by the BCA Central Bank Monitors, which are pointing to a need for tighter monetary policy everywhere except Japan (Chart 4). Chart 4Tighter Monetary Policy Is Required Is such a high-conviction view from the ECB justified? Let's do a little "truth check" on some of Draghi's most relevant comments from his speech: "All the signs now point to a strengthening and broadening recovery in the Euro Area." TRUE. Most reliable cyclical indicators - PMIs, consumer confidence, business confidence - are all at, or beyond, pre-2008 crisis levels (Chart 5). The German IFO index hit a record high in June, while data has been strengthening across all the major Euro Area economies (even Italy). "We can be more assured about the return of inflation to our objective than we were a few years ago. [However,] inflation dynamics are not yet durable and self-sustaining. So our monetary policy needs to be persistent." TRUE. The Euro Area unemployment rate at 9.5% now sits within hailing distance of the OECD's estimate of the full employment "NAIRU" rate of 9%. Already, core inflation and wage growth are stabilizing in the Euro Area (Chart 6), suggesting that the estimated full employment rate may be an accurate measure. The ECB is forecasting that the unemployment rate will fall to 8.4% by 2019, which would be below the OECD NAIRU level, and the ECB is now forecasting that Euro Area core inflation will rise to 1.8% within two years. That would likely be close enough to the ECB's official inflation target (headline inflation at or just below 2%) for a potential rate hike by then, but not before. Chart 5European Growth Looks Very Healthy Chart 6Full Employment Is In Sight "The past period of low inflation is [...] on the whole temporary and should not cause inflation to deviate from its trend over the medium term." MOST LIKELY TRUE. The steep fall in European inflation in 2014 triggered deflation fears, and prompted the ECB to finally engage in an asset purchase program just as the Fed was ending its' own "QE". Much of that decline was related to the sharp downturn in global energy prices. Draghi also noted in his speech that, by the ECB's own estimates, around two thirds of the undershoot of Euro Area inflation in 2015/16 came from the impact of lower energy prices. He also mentioned that past fall in oil prices and other "global shocks" are likely to still be restraining core inflation to some degree via pass-through effects in parts of the economy that are more energy-intensive. Draghi did also point out that the current low oil prices are mainly supply driven (a view that BCA's commodity strategists whole-heartedly agree with) and, therefore, can be "looked through" by a central bank. That may be dangerous view to take with wage inflation still subdued in Europe, but it seems clear that core inflation has indeed bottomed out and is in the process of a slow grind higher (Chart 7). This is also helping to stabilize inflation expectations in Europe to some degree, although it is far too early for the ECB to declare victory over "low-flation." "Political winds are becoming tailwinds. There is newfound confidence in the reform process, and newfound support for European cohesion, which could help unleash pent-up demand and investment." TRUE. The 2017 political calendar appeared daunting at the start of the year, with elections scheduled in the Netherlands, France and Germany anti-euro candidates scoring better-than-expected in the polling data. The ECB even cited political uncertainty as one of the reasons for extending its asset purchase program to the end of 2017, in case there was a surprise win by a "Euro-skeptic" party. The electoral losses by Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in France were strong signals that the anti-establishment wave that had washed over the U.K. and U.S. last year would not spill over into Europe. There is a new potential risk in Italy, where fresh parliamentary elections are expected to be called sometime in the first half of 2018. The polling numbers are tight there, with pro- and anti-euro parties showing roughly equal levels of support. Yet with the Italian economy showing some improvement alongside the rest of Europe, and with Italian banks under less immediate pressure after some successful recent rescue packages for struggling lenders (Chart 8), there is less risk of an anti-euro uprising in the polls in Italy next year. Chart 7From Deflation Fears To Reflation Cheers Chart 8Italy Is No Constraint To An ECB Taper At a minimum, the ECB likely would not factor politics into any decision on tapering its asset purchases starting in 2018. Chart 9Taper Tantrum 2.0? "As the economy continues to recover, a constant policy stance will become more accommodative, and the central bank can accompany the recovery by adjusting the parameters of its policy instruments - not to tighten the policy stance, but to keep it broadly unchanged." TRUE. The Fed was making similar arguments when they moved away from QE bond purchases and, eventually, the timing of the first rate hike. Using words like how the U.S. economy had "healed" from the financial crisis by enough to start removing some policy accommodation. In some respects, the European economy is in much better shape than when the Fed began its own taper in 2014. In Chart 9, we present an idea that we published earlier this year, showing the comparison of Europe now versus the U.S. pre-Fed taper. This is a "cycle-on-cycle" analysis, where the European and U.S. data are lined up to the peak of our months-to-hike indicator, noting the timing of the first rate hike priced into OIS curves after the period of 0% policy rates. The chart shows that the current Euro Area economy is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum. The Fed began signaling that major policy shift with core inflation below its 2% target, at similar levels to the current European core inflation rate. A look at the subsequent moves in bond yields and term premia (bottom two panels) suggests that Europe could be on the verge of its own Taper Tantrum in the next few months. Summing it all up, we conclude that the optimism on the European growth and inflation outlook expressed by Draghi is justified. Barring a sudden collapse in the economy or inflation over the summer, the ECB looks to be on course to announce a tapering of its bond purchases, starting in 2018, at the upcoming September policy meeting. Bottom Line: The sharp sell-off in global bond markets last week was triggered by more upbeat comments on growth and inflation by several major central bankers, most notably ECB President Mario Draghi. We see Draghi's positive views on the European economy to be generally accurate, which puts the ECB on a path to taper its asset purchases next year. Downgrade Core European Government Bonds To Underweight Our expectation heading into 2017 was that core European bonds would outperform U.S. Treasuries in the first half of the year as the Fed delivered more rate hikes and the ECB maintained a highly dovish tone at least through the April/May French presidential elections.1 After that, assuming the French election went according to our expectations with a Le Pen loss, the ECB would then turn its attention to potential "taper talk" that would trigger an underperformance of core Europe versus Treasuries. The U.S. Treasury rally since March defied our forecast, even though the Fed did actually hike rates twice! While we still see more Fed tightening and higher U.S. yields as the base case in the latter half of the year, the European story is playing out as we expected. We are sticking to our plan after last week's developments, and we are downgrading core European bonds (Germany, France, Italy) to a recommended underweight ranking (2 out of 5). Importantly, we've likely seen the low in European yields even if there is no tapering in 2018. In Chart 10, we update an analysis we did earlier this year, looking at the projected size of the ECB's monetary base under various asset purchase scenarios for next year: The ECB stops "cold turkey" on December 31 and buys no additional bonds in 2018; The ECB tapers its €60bn/month of bond buying to zero by June 2018; The ECB tapers its €60bn/month of bond buying to zero by December 2018; The ECB announces no taper and keeps on buying at €60bn/month throughout 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 10, we show the growth rate of the ECB's monetary base versus the German Bund yield and the term premium. The projections for the growth rates are based off the four scenarios laid out above. In all cases, the growth in the expansion of the ECB monetary base (and its balance sheet) will slow next year - even if there is no tapering. Importantly, the euro is unlikely to spike versus the U.S. dollar in the event of a tapering, as relative money supplies and policy interest rates will remain USD-bullish (Chart 11). Chart 10The ECB Effect On Bunds Will Soon Fade Chart 11A Taper-Fueled Rise In The Euro Has Its Limits This is the dirty little secret about central bank asset purchase programs. They must be delivered in even bigger sizes than before to have the same impact on asset prices and, eventually, economic growth and inflation. Chart 12UST-Bund Spread Looks Too Low We now feel comfortable shifting to a reduced recommended country allocation to core Europe in our model bond portfolio. We have been maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance in core Europe for the past couple of months, by placing less recommended exposure in the longer maturity "buckets" in our portfolio and overweighting the shorter-maturity buckets. Now, we are comfortable cutting the allocation to core Europe across all buckets based on our views on the ECB. What should be upgraded if we are downgrading Europe? As mentioned, we had expected to upgrade U.S. Treasuries at this point in the year, but the disappointing run of U.S. data (especially versus Europe) drove the Treasury-Bund spread sharply lower (Chart 12). Given our view that the U.S. economy and inflation will rebound in the latter half of this year and prompt the Fed to deliver more hikes, we see the Treasury-Bund spread as too low to recommend shifting out of core Europe into the U.S. Instead, we see a better case to upgrade the most defensive country in the developed bond universe - Japan. There is a clear divergence between recent growth and inflation data in the Euro Area versus Japan, most notably with core inflation returning to 0% in Japan (Chart 13). The JGB-Bund spread looks to be at critical support levels that could trigger a quick tightening, especially if there are more upside data surprises in Europe or disappointments in Japan (Chart 14). Chart 13Europe & Japan Are Diverging Chart 14Reduce Core European Exposure In Favor Of JGBs Bottom Line: Bund yields have more upside in the next 3-6 months as the market reprices a smaller amount of ECB bond buying. Downgrade core European government bonds to underweight (2 out of 5) and upgrade low-beta Japan to maximum overweight (5 out of 5). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017", dated December 20 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Reviving global trade and an enticing domestic operating backdrop mean that, after a 5-month hiatus, it is once again time to ride the rails. Even a modest reacceleration in global export volumes and domestic food and beverage shipments should propel the S&P containers & packaging index toward cyclical highs. Recent Changes S&P Railroads - Boost to overweight. Table 1 Feature A rotational correction remains the dominant market theme; all of the financials sector's gains have mirrored the tech sector's losses. Our view remains that this rotation is healthy, and that consolidation rather than correction is the appropriate broad market context. One catalyst for the late week pullback and escalation of the sub-surface transitions was the Fed's stress test results, which all banks passed. That was a first, and investors cheered a slew of share buyback and dividend payout increase announcements. Meanwhile, narrowing interest rate differentials continue to put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar, allowing inflation expectations to stabilize and spurring a nascent steepening of the yield curve. In fact, a global bond selloff is gaining steam, as the era of extraordinarily easy global monetary policy is likely coming to an end. That should ensure that flows into financial stocks persist, especially given the upbeat message from our profit model (Chart 1). In recent research we have shown how receding correlations are a tonic for stock returns, but the CBOE's implied correlation index is limiting as it covers only one business cycle. Chart 2 shows an average of the pairwise 52-week correlations between 40 equity sectors using weekly S&P return data starting in the late-1990s, alongside the S&P 500 (correlation index shown inverted). The message is similar to the CBOE implied correlation index, as stock correlations collapse, i.e. stock picking gains traction and earnings fundamentals dictate the broad trend, the S&P 500 climbs higher, and vice versa. Chart 1Upbeat EPS Model Message Chart 2Falling Correlations Boost The S&P500 Chart 3 goes a step further. Using S&P GICS1 data we ran the same exercise on the top ten sector pairwise correlations all the way back to the mid-1970s. While stock correlations do move inversely with stock prices (not shown), this chart reveals another interesting trend. Chart 3Good Recession Predictor, But Not Worried Yet Equity correlations have often led the business cycle. When correlations drop precipitously, recession warnings abound. However, there have been two notable exceptions, in the mid-80s and mid-to-late-90s. Then, correlations fell, but the economy did not enter recession. The common denominator in both of those periods was the drubbing in the commodity pits, especially energy. In other words, commodity deflation morphed into a mid-cycle economic slowdown, but the broad market stayed resilient because the economy skirted recession. In fact, when oil hit $10/bbl in 1986 and 1998, the S&P 500 subsequently surged. The S&P 500 has once again defied oil's gravitational pull (Chart 4), because it has produced a healthy deflation/disinflation rather than a debilitating one (oil inflation shown inverted, Chart 5). Chart 4Slipping Oil Fuels Equities... Chart 5...And The Economy As a result, we are not worried about a U.S. recession just yet, despite the drop in stock correlations. Instead, equities have likely navigated through a mid-cycle correction, as in the mid-80s and mid-to-late-90s. This week we continue to add cyclical exposure to our portfolio via upgrading a transport heavyweight, and reiterating our bullish stance on a niche materials global growth play. Hop On The Rails For A Ride Railroad stocks bested the market by 40% from the Q1/2016 trough to the Q1/2017 peak, and we managed to get on board for the bulk of that ride. We booked gains in late-January and since then relative performance has been in consolidation mode. Is it time to re-board the rails now that global growth worries have largely dissipated? The short answer is yes. Two key drivers underpin our bullish thesis: the budding recovery in global trade and a favorable domestic operating backdrop for the largest S&P transportation sub-index. Last week we upped our conviction status to high in the S&P air freight & logistics group, on the back of rising global exports volumes. Rails also benefit from improving trade/economic activity. BCA's global industrial production (IP) growth composite is marching steadily higher (third panel, Chart 6). Historically, global IP and rail relative forward EPS estimates have moved in tandem, and the current message is that rail profit outperformance is still in the early stages. Credit availability is the fuel required to bolster global trade, and easy global monetary and financial conditions are enticing banks to originate loans. According to the BIS, global credit growth is on the mend, and the global credit impulse is accelerating. The implication is that world export growth should continue to climb, to the benefit of rail freight activity, and by extension, relative profitability (Chart 6). While rail shipments have surged since the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession, relative forward earnings momentum has only just recently crossed into positive territory, suggesting that there is additional scope for upward revisions (second panel, Chart 6). On the domestic front, leading rail freight indicators remain upbeat. The manufacturing, wholesale and, most importantly, retail sales-to-inventories ratios continue to expand nicely, signaling buoyant intermodal demand. The CASS freight index is also gaining steam (Chart 12, in the next section) and L.A. port traffic is heavy. Our Railroad Indicator hit a 5-year high recently, and hints that more gains are in store for railroads (Chart 7). Chart 6A Play On Global Growth Chart 7Domestic Outlook Is Positive Commodity railcar loads in general, and coal in particular have also staged a recovery, albeit from an all-time low level. Coal is significant as it comprises roughly 20% of all rail shipments and is a high margin category (fourth panel, Chart 8). As the U.S. economy rebounds after a weak Q1, electricity demand should remain firm. The near doubling in natural gas prices in the past 18 months should provide an assist to coal shipments, as the latter will become an increasingly competitively priced alternative for power generation (Chart 8). Increased freight activity coupled with capacity discipline have started to support a recovery in rail pricing power. Rail margins have significant leverage to pricing changes, and against a backdrop of well contained wage costs and low diesel fuel prices, profit margins should rebound smartly (middle panel, Chart 9). Clearly, margin expansion would be a meaningful catalyst for a valuation re-rating (bottom panel, Chart 9). All of these factors are captured in our rails EPS model. The latter has surged relative to our S&P 500 profit model (Chart 10) implying that analysts have room to further upgrade their relative profit estimates. Chart 8Firming Selling Prices... Chart 9...Are A Boon For Margins Chart 10Rails EPS Model Says Buy In sum, recovering global trade and an enticing domestic operating backdrop underscore that after a 5-month hiatus the time is right to ride the rails once again. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P railroads index (CSX, KSU, NSC, UNP) to overweight. Don't "Pack" It In Now The global macro backdrop is fertile ground for the niche S&P containers & packaging index to stage a run at cyclical relative performance highs. If our thesis that global trade will continue to advance pans out, then packaging stocks should follow in the footsteps of both air freight & logistics and railroad stocks. Export volumes are one of the best predictors of relative profitability, given that packaging companies need high utilization rates to fully demonstrate the scope of their operating leverage. The current synchronized EM and DM economic recovery will continue to underpin global trade. Chart 11 shows that export volumes have hit all-time highs and momentum is also reaccelerating, despite the lack of response in export prices. Importantly, the lack of export price inflation may stoke additional volume gains. The steep rise in overall rail car shipments, increased activity at North American ports and the V-shaped recovery in the CASS freight shipments index also point to earnings outperformance in the coming quarters (Chart 12). Chart 11Another Play On Global Trade... Chart 12...With Upbeat Domestic Prospects Meanwhile, the secular shift away from brick and mortar sales and toward online shopping represents another positive EPS tailwind. The second panel of Chart 13 shows that as online sales continue to grab a rising share of overall retail sales, the packaging industry is a derivative beneficiary, albeit with a lag. Packaging manufacturers also court food and beverage-related industries as their customers. Thus, any food and beverage price swings have a direct impact on volume growth. In other words, when prices rise demand for food and beverages drops and volumes retreat, and vice versa. Now that Amazon is escalating the grocery wars and Aldi and Lidl are also expanding their U.S. footprint, food and beverage price pressure will intensify. The implication is that a volume driven relative profit recovery is brewing (Chart 13). Already, companies in the packaging index are successfully raising selling prices at a healthy clip. Indeed, firming packaging products demand has caused packaging price inflation to breach multi-year highs on a 6-month rate of change basis. If volume growth persists, as we expect, then selling prices should continue to expand and support profit margins (Chart 14). Chart 13Booming Online And Food Volumes Are A Plus Chart 14Margin Expansion Phase Looms Simultaneously, the industry is keeping labor costs under control. Such discipline typically aids profit margins. Tack on receding commodity-related input cost inflation and the ingredients are in place for a substantial profit margin and, as a result, EPS expansion. All of this positive news is not yet reflected in still depressed relative valuations. The industry is trading at a 10% discount to the broad market on a forward P/E basis. Even a modest reacceleration in global export volumes and domestic food and beverage shipments should propel the index toward cyclical highs (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P containers & packaging index (IP, BLL, WRK, SEE, AVY). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The Q2 earnings season will be above average and the BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit 18% later this year before moderating in 2018. Are the NIPA and S&P profit measures sending different signals? Business capital spending remains in an uptrend despite businesses' reluctance to spend ahead of changes in corporate tax policy. The commercial real estate sector (CRE) is beginning to show early signs of stress. Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits, even for Republicans in an environment of populism. Feature Q2 Earnings Season Is Here Chart 1Strong Earnings Growth##BR##In 2017 Will Support Equities The Q2 earnings season will be above average and the BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 18% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 1). The consensus is anticipating an 8% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016, and 11% for 2017. Energy, technology, and financials, all are forecast to lead the way in earnings growth in Q2, but utilities and telecom will be the laggards. The favorable profit picture for Q2 and the rest of the year reflects the rebound in oil prices, which are expected to boost energy sector EPS by 671%. The positive picture also mirrors the sweet spot of rising top-line growth and still muted labor costs, which are driving a countercyclical rally in profit margins. The focus in Q2 for investors and corporate executives will be on the improving economic conditions in Europe and EM, the U.S. dollar and the sustainability of margins. Guidance from CEOs and CFOs on trends in 2H 2017 and beyond are more important than the actual Q2 results. Note that guidance can be tracked using Chart 2. Investors should guard against managements' over-optimism because earnings growth forecasts almost always move lower over time. Chart 22017 EPS Estimates Rebounding And 2018 Stable In Q2, firms with high overseas sales should benefit from the improved growth profile in Europe and Japan. Global GDP growth projections for this year and next have steadily escalated, in sharp contrast with prior years when forecasters have relentlessly lowered GDP estimates. On the other hand, the U.S. dollar should be a modest drag on earnings in Q2; the dollar is up 2% versus a year ago against a broad basket of currencies. Moreover, in the most recent Beige Book (May 31) mentions of a "strong dollar" were unchanged compared with a year ago, indicating that the stronger currency has faded as a primary concern of managements in recent months. Our view is that the dollar will appreciate by another 10%. This appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 2.5 percentage points, although most of this would occur in 2018 due to lagged effects. Another upleg in the dollar, on its own, should not provide a substantial headwind for the stock market. Indeed, the dollar would only climb in the context of robust U.S. economic growth and an expanding corporate top line. Investors are skeptical that margins can advance for the fourth consecutive quarter in Q2. Our view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins and that should continue for the next quarter or two, but the secular "mean reversion" of margins will resume beyond that time. Bottom Line: Look for another solid performance for earnings and margins in Q2 and the rest of 2017, supporting our stocks-over-bonds stance for this year. However, investors should position their portfolios for decelerating earnings and compressed profit margins in 2018. Will The Real Profit Margin Stand Up While the markets focus on Q2 earnings, margins and corporate guidance for the next month or so, we take a broader view. For some time we have highlighted the importance of the mini-cycle in U.S. earnings growth; the corporate sector is in a catch-up phase following last year's profit recession, a trend that extends beyond the energy patch. EPS growth has surged this year on the back of slightly stronger sales and rising S&P 500 margins. The National Accounts (NIPA) data, on the other hand, paint a different picture. Earnings growth for the entire corporate sector fell sharply in the first quarter and margins continued to slide. If the NIPA data are telling the true story, then the equity market is in trouble because it suggests that the earnings outlook is much weaker than what is discounted in stock prices. There are many definitional differences that make it difficult to reconcile the NIPA and S&P data.1 Nonetheless, we can make some general observations. Chart 3 presents the four-quarter growth rate of NIPA profits2 and a proxy for aggregate S&P earnings. For the latter, we multiplied earnings-per-share by the divisor to obtain an estimate of the level of aggregate earnings in dollar terms (i.e. not on a per-share basis). The bottom panel of Chart 3 compares the level of profits, each indexed to be 100 in 2011 Q1. The charts highlight that while there have been marked differences in annual growth rates between the two measures, the levels were close to the same point in the first quarter of 2017. The dip in NIPA profit growth in Q1 was not reflected in the S&P measure. It appears that this is partly due to different profiles for profit growth in the energy and financials sectors. However, it does not appear that the difference in margins is linked to a significant divergence in aggregate profits. Most of the margin divergence is related to the denominator of the calculation (Chart 4). The NIPA denominator is corporate sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a value-added concept that is different from sales. It is not clear why, but GDP has grown much faster than sales since the end of 2014. We believe that the S&P data are painting a more accurate picture because sales are straight forward to measure, while value-added is complicated to construct. The slow growth of sales is not a bullish point for stocks. Nonetheless, it does not appear that financial engineering has distorted bottom-up company data to such an extent that the S&P data are falsely signaling strong profit growth. We expect the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the profit backdrop remains positive for stocks for now. The same is true in the Eurozone and Japan, where margins are also rising. It is worrying that a much of this year's advance in U.S. equity markets has been concentrated in only a few stocks, but that belies the breadth of the profit recovery (Chart 5). The proportion of S&P industry groups with rising earnings estimates is 75%, reflecting broad-based upgrades. Chart 3S&P And NIPA##BR##Profit Comparison Chart 4Denominator Explains##BR##S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence Chart 5Positive Earnings Revisions##BR##Are Broadly Based Such widespread participation is consistent with ongoing upward revisions to 12-month forward earnings estimates. Bottom Line: The solid earnings backdrop is why we remain overweight stocks versus bonds and cash. Stay extra vigilant for warning signs of a bear market in view of the poor valuations. Valuation has never been good leading indicator for bear markets, but it may provide information on the risks. Capital Spending Check Up Business capital spending remains in an uptrend. Investors are concerned that the below expectations readings on capex in recent months may be the start of a new trend for a significant part of the economy. We look at it another way. Managements are postponing investment decisions until they get more clarity on federal tax policy. In short, corporations are struggling with how much and when spend, rather than whether to invest at all. The key supports for sustained corporate spending remain despite the tepid May durable goods report. C&I loan growth has ticked back up and our model (based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate) suggests lending is poised to move higher on a 12-month basis (Chart 6). Our research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles get underway only when businesses see evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. While consumer expenditures were soft (+1.1% annualized gain) in Q1, household spending in Q2 accelerated and is on track to post 3%+ growth. We expect household spending to continue to improve in the second half of 2017.3 Moreover, the recent readings on core durable goods orders and shipments show that the uptrend that began in mid-2016 persists, despite the recent monthly wiggles in the data (Chart 7). Chart 6Model Points To##BR##Further Improvement Chart 7Capital Spending##BR##Remains In An Uptrend CEO confidence recently soared to a 13-year high in Q1, adding to the positive backdrop for capex. The last reading on this survey was taken in the first quarter of 2017 when managements eagerly anticipated that business-friendly legislation was pending. The next survey (due in mid-July) may show a bit more restraint from CEOs given the lack of legislative progress in Washington (Chart 7, top panel). Bottom Line: The fundamentals supporting solid business spending remain in place. However, our positive capex outlook in the U.S. could be blemished if the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. Stressing The Commercial Real Estate Market The commercial real estate sector (CRE) is beginning to show early signs of stress. The recent softening in CRE does not suggest that recession is imminent, but investors should understand whether a sustained drop in CRE prices poses a risk to the global financial system. At best, business spending on construction is coincident with the overall economy, but most often lags due to long lead times required on projects (Chart 8). Chart 8Commercial Real Estate Lags Our colleagues in the Global Investment Strategy service4 highlighted the risks to the CRE market, noting that CRE-related debt is rising, prices have surpassed pre-recessionary levels, vacancy rates outside of the industrial sector are bottoming, and rent growth is losing steam (Chart 9). Likewise, we share Boston Fed President Rosengren's5 concern that if CRE's recent tailwinds (muted inflation, low financing rates, declining unemployment rate, robust economic growth in the U.S. relative to overseas developed economies, and favorable demographics) turn to headwinds, then the impact on the market and the wider economy may have a disproportionate impact on CRE. The BCA Beige Book Real Estate Monitor corroborates a softening in recent quarters. The monitor takes the real estate (both commercial and residential) comments from each Beige Book and uses the approach outlined in our April 17 publication6 (Chart 10). Chart 9Commercial Real Estate##BR##Indicators Softening Chart 10Introducing The##BR##Beige Book CRE Monitor Stretched CRE valuations may exacerbate any price declines in CRE if the markets sense that the tide is turning. Falling prices may lead to a drop in the value of collateral-backing CRE loans, which in turn, could cause lenders to restrict credit in the sector and spark an additional downturn in prices. Moreover, Table 1 highlights the risk that GSE reform may cause two large holders of CRE debt to begin to curtail lending. Small banks have more absolute exposure to CRE loans than large banks, according to the table, and overall, banks' share of CRE lending (53%) is nearly four times as high as GSE's exposure. Table 1Holders Of Commercial Real Estate Loans CRE's risks are evident in the latest round of bank CCAR stress tests. The Fed modeled a 15% drop in CRE prices through Q4 2018 in its "adverse" scenario and a 35% drop in the same period in its "severely adverse" scenario. The Fed7 found that under these scenarios, common equity Tier 1 capital ratio at the participating firms would drop from 12.5% (Q4 2016) to 9.2% and 7.2% respectively by Q1 2019. Bottom Line: Commercial real estate has benefitted from a Fed-led tailwind since the end of the 2007-2009 recession. That said, some of the tailwinds are turning to headwinds and investors should be prepared for a reversal in this sector sometime in the second half of 2018 as economic and earnings growth slows, which could set the stage for a recession in 2019. That said, it is a positive sign for the economy that the commercial real estate sector is one of the few areas showing any signs of stress, implying that the conditions for a recession in the next 6 to 12 months remain low. Is Dodd-Frank Dead? The Republicans' Financial CHOICE Act, which would roll back key aspects of the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, has hurdles to overcome before its passage through the U.S. Senate. Two of BCA's publications have examined the impact on consumers, investors and financial markets. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy8 service noted that Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase the financial sector's profits, credit growth, economic growth and animal spirits. A repeal would also satisfy the Republicans' ideological goal to reduce state involvement, which grew due to the law. Also, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over 10 years, in line with the GOP's political bent. The CHOICE Act would create an "escape hatch" to allow banks to maintain a capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. The intent is to boost lending, earnings and growth. According to the Geopolitical Strategy, if the bill becomes law, U.S. banks comprising an estimated $1.5 trillion in assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small community banks and credit unions. These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio (Chart 11). Chart 11Banks With $1.5 Trillion Could Gain Risk Appetite Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's liquidation fund: The private sector would take over responsibility for managing liquidations. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. Cut penalties for violating regulations. Chart 12Small Banks Benefit##BR##From Bank Deregulation Investors could capitalize on financial sector reform by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank stocks. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to subsequently fall back, has recently perked up (Chart 12). Relative earnings have been flat in the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, then these banks should see earnings improve, and drive up their share prices. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy is positive on global bank equities. In particular, U.S. banks have better fundamentals than their counterparts in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates. BCA's Fiscal Note Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals is becoming less onerous on the financial sector. Chart 13 is an aggregation of the favorability scores, which assess whether the bill would be favorable to the financial sector. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any point. Chart 13Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits, even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked on to the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The post-election rally for bank stocks is mostly over. Investors have an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 The first problem is that the S&P data are expressed on a per-share basis. Moreover, the NIPA data adjusts for inventory and depreciation allowance. S&P margins are calculated using sales in the denominator, while we generally use GDP as the denominator for calculating NIPA profits. 2 The NIPA data shown include financials and profits earned overseas, as is the case for the S&P. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still In The Sweet Spot", June 19, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Timing Of The Next Recession," published June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 "Trends In Commercial Real Estate", Eric S. Rosengren, at Risk Management for Commercial Real Estate Financial Markets Conference, NYU Stern School of Business, May 9, 2017. 6 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", published April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-ccar-assessment-framework-results-20170628.pdf 8 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "How Long Can The "Trump Put" Last?," published June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Recommended Allocation Risk assets have continued to outperform, despite soft inflation data and falling interest rates. Either inflation will pick up again, amid decent growth, and the Fed (and, to a degree, other central banks) will tighten, or the Fed will capitulate and stay on hold. Either scenario should be good for risk assets. No indicator signals a recession on the horizon, and so we continue to expect equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. Within equities, we favor DM over EM; we maintain a pro-cyclical sector tilt, but rotate out of Tech into Financials, which are cheaper and should benefit from steeper yield curves. In fixed income, we prefer credit to government bonds, but trim our overweight in investment grade credit as spreads are unlikely to contract further. We are overweight TIPS and Japanese inflation-linked bonds. Feature Overview How To Square Lower Rates And Rising Equities One of the basic principles of BCA's Global Asset Allocation service is that it is highly unusual for equities to underperform bonds for any extended period except in the run-up to, and during, recessions (Chart 1). After the recent decline in long-term interest rates and softness in inflation, we find investors worldwide becoming increasingly nervous about the outlook. We see nothing in the data, however, to indicate a recession in the coming 12 months. Of the three historically most reliable recession indicators - PMIs, credit spreads, and the yield curve (Chart 2) - only the last raises some concerns, but it is still far from inverting, which is the requirement for a recession signal. None of the formal recession models is flashing a warning signal either (Chart 3). Chart 1Stocks Outperform Except Ahead Of Recession Chart 2Usual Recession Signals Still Absent Chart 3Recession Risk Models Not Rising Either Nonetheless, market action in recent months has been unusual. Bond yields have fallen (with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield slipping to 2.2% from 2.6%), and the dollar has weakened, but risk assets have continued to perform well, with global equities giving a total return of 13% year to date and 4% in Q2. Can this desynchronization continue? We see three possible scenarios:1 Chart 4Market Expects Fed To Be Dovish Reflation returns. The Fed proves to be right that the recent weak inflation data is temporary. Inflation picks up and the Fed raises rates more quickly than the market is currently pricing in (which is only 25 bps over the next 12 months, Chart 4). Initially, the rebound in inflation might be a shock for risk assets but, as long as the Fed is tightening because it is confident about growth and unconcerned about global risk, over 12 months risk assets such as equities should continue to outperform. The Fed capitulates. Inflation fails to rebound and the Fed tightens only in line with what the market is currently pricing in. This could be good for risk assets, as long as the soft inflation is not accompanied by disappointing data on growth. The U.S. dollar would probably weaken further, which should be positive for EM assets and commodities. A policy mistake. The Fed pushes stubbornly ahead with tightening even though inflation fails to rebound. Bond yields fall and the yield curve moves closer to inverting. This would be negative for risk assets, which would start to price in the risk of recession. We think the first scenario is the most likely. Leading indicators of employment suggest the recent sluggish wage growth should prove temporary (Chart 5). The softness in U.S. PCE inflation probably reflects mostly the weak economic growth last year and the recent fall in commodity prices (as well as special factors in telecoms, healthcare and autos). Even if reflation pushes the Fed to tighten more quickly - followed by central banks in the euro area, U.K, and Canada, which have also sounded more hawkish recently - this should not fundamentally undermine the case for risk assets, given how easy monetary policy remains everywhere (Chart 6). It would represent merely a step towards "normalization". Chart 5Sluggish Wage Growth Should Be Temporary Chart 6Real Rates Still Negative Everywhere While scenario (2) would also probably be generally positive for risk assets, the correct portfolio allocation would be different. Under scenario (1) - our central view - the dollar would appreciate, causing commodities and EM assets to underperform, higher beta markets (such as the euro area and Japan) and cyclical sectors would perform the best, and in bond markets investors should be underweight duration and overweight TIPS. Scenario (2) would suggest a less aggressive positioning in equities, with income-generating assets outperforming as bond yields stay low at around current levels. Scenario (3), which we see only as a tail risk, would point to an outright defensive stance. What should investors watch for over the coming months? Besides the trends in inflation and wages discussed above, we would be concerned to see any slippage in global growth expectations, which have so far continued to rise despite the softness in inflation and wages (Chart 7). The most likely cause of this would be a Chinese slowdown, though recent comments by Premier Li Keqiang ("we continue to implement a proactive fiscal policy and prudent monetary policy....[but] will not resort to massive stimulative measures") seem to confirm our view that Chinese growth may slow a little further, but that the authorities will not allow it to collapse ahead of the Party Congress in the fall. As potential upside catalysts for risk assets we see: a rebound in crude oil prices (driven by a drawdown in inventories over coming months as the OPEC production cuts reduce supply, Chart 8), progress on a U.S. tax cut (which BCA's Geopolitical Strategy still expects to come into effect from early 2018), and further surprises in earnings growth (where analysts continue to revise up their forecasts, Chart 9). Chart 7No Signs Of Global Growth Slipping Chart 8Oil Inventories To Draw Down Chart 9Earnings Continue To Be Revised Up Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking Why Haven't Inflation And Wages Picked Up? Chart 10Just A Temporary Phenomenon? Eight years into an expansion, U.S. inflation remains stubbornly below 2% on every measure and has even slowed in recent months (Chart 10, panel 1). And, despite headline unemployment of only 4.3% (below the Fed's estimate of 4.6% for the Nairu), wage growth also remains sluggish (panel 3). The Fed's view is that inflation has been pulled down by special factors: weak auto sales, the introduction of unlimited cell phone data packages (which lower hedonically-adjusted prices), and drugs companies which raised prices before last year's U.S. presidential election (panel 2). We agree that these factors are likely to be temporary. But the recent weak wage growth is more puzzling. Wages have trended up since 2012, suggesting that the Phillips Curve is not dead. But the relationship seems to have weakened. With U6 unemployment (which includes marginally attached workers and those working part-time who would like full-time jobs) currently at only 8.4%, one would have expected wage growth to be 1 ppt higher than it is (panel 4). Changes in the structure of the workforce may partly explain this (the growing proportion of low-wage service jobs, the "gig economy"). Last year's weak corporate profits may also be a factor. But, with the labor market clearly very tight, we expect wages - and therefore core inflation - to pick up again over the next 12 months. What To Do When VIX Is So Low? After two brief spikes earlier in the year, VIX has declined to 11.4, closer to the historical low of 9.3 reached in 1993, than the historical average of 19.5. In fact, asset price volatilities have been low across the board in fixed income, currencies and commodities, even though the latter two are not at the same extreme low levels as equities and fixed income (Chart 11). However, the VIX futures curve is still in steep contango, which means that getting the timing wrong would make it very costly to go long the volatility index. In addition, correlation among the index members of the S&P 500 is very low, and so are cross-market equity correlations. We do not forecast a recession until 2019, so a sharp reversal in VIX is unlikely, but brief spikes are possible, implying possible corrections in S&P 500 given the inverse correlation between the two. As such, we recommend four strategies for investors who are concerned that markets are too complacent: Focus on security selection, and rotate into cheaper sectors from expensive ones without altering the pro-cyclical bias. Our preferred way is to buy the much cheaper Financials by selling the more expensive Tech; Allocate a portion of funds to the minimum volatility style as it has been relatively oversold; Raise cash and buy a call spread on the S&P 500; Buy longer-dated VIX futures and sell shorter-dated futures to mitigate the rolling cost. Chart 11Are Investors Too Complacent? Chart 12Overweight To Neutral Have Technology Stock Run Too Far? Technology stocks have outperformed the broad market by 33% since April 2013 and investors are increasingly skeptical about whether the run-up can continue. In this Quarterly, we cut our weighting in the Tech sector from Overweight, but we believe it deserves no lower than a Neutral weighting for the following reasons: Sales & Earnings: New order growth is improving alongside rising consumer spending on technology (Chart 12, panel 2). Sales are growing at 5% YoY and this is likely to continue. Pricing power has also recovered over the past year. These factors should support margins and earnings growth. Valuations: Investors are worried about valuation. However, the recent rally has not led to an expansion of relative forward P/E, which is below the historical average (panel 4). Sector relative performance over the past four years has moved in line with its superior return on equity. Breadth: Improving breadth suggests that relative outperformance should be sustainable. An increasing number of firms are participating in the rally, as seen by the improving advances/declines ratio (panel 3). However, we also have some concerns. For example, a handful of large-cap technology firms have generated the bulk of the stock price performance. However, these firms currently trade at 23x.2 earnings compared to 60x.3 for the top firms at the peak of the TMT bubble in 2000. Additionally, the five largest stocks in the sector comprise only 13% of the index, compared to 16% at the peak of the 2000 bubble. Our recommendation, then, is that investors should hold this sector in line with benchmark. Are Canadian Banks At Risk Due To The Housing Bubble? Chart 13Canadian Housing Puzzle The recent problems at Home Capital Group have drawn investors' attention to the Canadian housing market. Home Capital's shares fell by 70% in April after regulators accused the mortgage lender of being slow to disclose fraud among its brokers. However, the issue is unlikely to have wider consequences: the event took place two years ago and had no impact on the lender's assets. Home Capital lends only to individuals with reliable collateral, and accounts for only 1% of total mortgage loans. We don't see imminent risks to the housing and banking sectors, since the economy is recovering and monetary policy remains loose. Vancouver and Toronto home prices have surged for almost a decade (Chart 13, panel 1). After Vancouver introduced a 15% foreign buyer tax in July 2016, house prices initially pulled back but quickly recovered. A similar tax in Ontario this April is also likely to have limited impact. Cautious macro-prudential rules should ensure banks' health: mortgage insurance is required for down-payments under 20%, and the gross debt service ratio (total housing costs over household income) cannot exceed 32%. However, the rise in house prices has caused household debt to run up (Chart 13, panel 2). Carolyn Wilkins, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, hinted in a speech in June that the central bank may soon raise rates. Tighter monetary policy could hurt mortgage borrowers who have enjoyed low interest payments for years (Chart 13, panel 3). Over the longer-term, therefore, we are concerned about the level of household debt, and recommend a cautious stance toward Canadian bank stocks. Global Economy Overview: Goldilocks continues, with global growth prospects still good (PMIs in developed economies generally remain around 55 - see Chart 14 panel 2 and Chart 15 panel 1), but inflation surprising on the downside in recent months. The wild card is China, where growth has slowed since Q1, when GDP reached 6.9%, and it is unclear whether the authorities will ease fiscal and monetary tightening to cushion the slowdown. Chart 14Growth Prospects Generally Remain Good Chart 15But Inflation Expectations Have Fallen U.S.: Growth has been weaker than the over-heated consensus expected, pushing down the Citigroup Economic Surprise Indexes (CESI) sharply (Chart 14, panel 1). However, prospects remain positive for the next 12 months: the Manufacturing ISM is at 54.9, retail sales are growing at 3.8% YoY, and capex has begun to reaccelerate (Chart 14, panel 5). The Fed's Nowcasts point to Q2 GDP growth at 1.9%-2.7% QoQ annualized. With expections now lowered, the CESI is likely to bottom around here. Euro Area: Growth has been stronger than in the U.S, with the PMI continuing to accelerate to 57.3. However, this is largely due to the euro area's strong cyclicality and exposure to global growth. Domestic momentum remains weak in most countries, with region-wide wage growth only 1.4% YoY. European PMIs are likely to roll over in line with the U.S. ISM. But GDP growth for the year is not likely to fall much from the 1.9% achieved in Q1. Japan remains a dual-paced economy, with international sectors doing well (exports rose by 14.9% YoY in May and industrial production by 5.7%) but domestic sectors stagnating, as wage growth remains sluggish (up just 0.5% YoY). Bank of Japan policy will remain ultra-easy, but there is scant sign of fiscal stimulus or structural reform. Emerging Markets: China is showing clear signs of slowdown, with the Caixin Manufacturing PMI falling below 50 (Chart 15, panel 3). The PBoC has tightened monetary policy, causing corporate bond yields to rise by 100 bps since the start of the year and the yield curve to invert. However, with the 19th Communist Party Conference scheduled for the fall, the authorities will prioritize stability: there are signs they are increasing fiscal spending. Elsewhere, many emerging markets are characterized by sluggish growth but falling inflation, which may allow central banks to cut rates. Interest rates: Inflation has softened recently, with U.S. core PCE inflation slowing to 1.4% and euro zone core CPI to 1.1%. We agree with the Fed that the recent weak inflation was caused by temporary factors and, with little slack in the labor market, core PCE will rise to 2% by next year, causing the Fed to hike in line with its dots. In the euro zone, however, the output gap remains around -2% of GDP and countries such as Italy could not bear tightening, so the ECB will taper only gradually next year and not raise rates soon. Chart 16Powered by Earnings and Margin Improvement! Global Equities In Q2 2017 the price gain in global equities was driven entirely by earnings growth, as forward earnings grew by 3.5% while the forward PE multiple barely changed. This is distinctively different from the equity rally in 2016 when multiple expansion dominated earnings growth (Chart 16). The scope of the improvement in earnings so far in 2017 has been wide. Not only are forward earnings being revised up, but 12-month trailing earnings growth has also come in very strong, with 90% of sectors registering positive earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM. Equity valuation is not cheap by historical standards but, as an asset class, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds given how low global bond yields are. We remain overweight equities versus bonds even though we are a little concerned about the extremely low volatility in all asset classes (see "What Our Clients Are Asking" on page 8). Within equities, we maintain our call to favor DM versus EM despite the 7% EM outperformance year-to-date, which was supported by attractive valuations and the weak U.S. dollar. BCA's house view is that the USD will strengthen versus EM currencies over the coming 12 months. Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon, in spite of China's 6.7% outperformance versus EM. Our upgrade of euro area equities to overweight at the expense of the U.S. in our last Quarterly Portfolio Outlook proved to be timely as the euro area outperformed the U.S. by 641 bps in Q2. We continue to like Japan on a currency hedged basis (see next page). Sector-wise, we maintain a pro-cyclical tilt. However, we are taking profit on our overweight in Technology (downgrade to neutral) and upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral. Japanese Equities: Maintain Overweight, With Yen Hedge We upgraded Japanese equities to overweight in June 2016 (please see our Quarterly Report, dated June 30, 2016 and our Special Report, dated June 8, 2016) on a currency hedged basis. These positions have worked very well as the yen is down by 10% and MSCI Japan has gained 32% in yen term, outperforming the global benchmark by 12% in local currency terms, but in line with benchmark in USD (Chart 17). Going forward, we recommend clients continue to overweight Japanese equities in a global portfolio and hedge the JPY exposure. Reasons: First, since December 2012 when Abenomics started, MSCI Japanese equities have gained 82% in yen terms, but earnings have risen by much more, with a 180% increase. Valuation multiples have contracted, in stark contrast to other major equity markets where multiple expansion has led to stretched valuations. Second, divergent monetary policy between the BOJ and the Fed will put more downside pressure on the JPY. More importantly, weak fundamentals, as evidenced by falling inflation and a slowing in GDP growth, are likely to push the BOJ to resort to more extraordinary policy measures, such as debt monetization, which would further weaken the JPY, boosting exports and therefore the export sector dominated Japanese equity market. Note that our quant model is still underweight Japan, but has become slightly less so compared to six months ago. We have overridden the model because 1) the model is unhedged in USD terms and, more importantly, 2) the model cannot capture potential policy action such as debt monetization. Chart 17Japanese Equities: Remain Overweight Chart 18Financials Vs Tech: Trading Places Sector Allocation: Upgrade Financials to Overweight by Downgrading Tech to Neutral. We have been overweight Technology since July 2016 (please see our Monthly Update, July 29, 2016) and the sector has outperformed the global benchmark by 11.8%, of which 9% came this year. In line with our general concern on asset valuations, we are taking profit on the Tech overweight and use the proceeds to fund an overweight in the much cheaper Financials sector. As shown in Chart 18, the relative total return performance of Financials vs. Technology is back to extreme levels (panel 1), while the relative valuation of Financials measured by price to book has reached an extremely cheap level (panel 2). Also, Financial shares offer a good yield pick-up over Tech even though this advantage is in line with the historical average (panel 3). BCA's house view calls for higher interest rates and steeper yield curves over the next 9-12 months. Financial earnings benefit from a steepening yield curve. If history is any guide, we should see more aggressive analysts' earnings revisions going forward in favor of Financials (panel 4). Overall, our sector positioning retains its tilt towards cyclicals vs. defensives. (Please see Recommended Allocation table on page 1), in line with the tilt from our quant model. Within the cyclical sectors, however, we have overridden the model on Financials and Tech since the momentum factor is a major driver in the model and we judge that momentum has probably run too far. Chart 19MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance Smart Beta Update: In Q2, an equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio outperformed the global benchmark (Chart 19, top panel). Among the five most enduring factors - size, value, quality, minimum volatility, and momentum - quality and momentum factors continued the Q1 trend of outperformance, while value continued to underperform. It's worth noting that the underperformance of minimum volatility stabilized in the last two months of the quarter, indicating that the extremely low market vol has caught investor attention and some investors have started to seek protection by moving into the low vol space, albeit gradually. Value has continued to underperform growth, and small caps to underperform large caps. We maintain our neutral view on styles and prefer to use sector positioning to implement the underlying themes given the historically close correlation between styles and cyclicals versus defensives (bottom two panels). As show in Table 1, however, even though value has underperformed growth across the globe, small caps in Japan and the euro area have consistently outperformed large caps year-to-date, the opposite to that in the U.S., in line with the higher beta nature of these two markets. Table 1Divergence In Style Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. U.S. bond yields declined significantly in Q2 to below fair value levels in response to weaker "hard data" (Chart 20, top panel). But weakness in Q1 U.S. GDP was concentrated in consumer spending and inventories, both of which are likely to strengthen in the months ahead. In addition, after the June rate hike, we expect the Fed to deliver another rate hike by year end, while the market is pricing in only 14 bps of rate rise. Maintain overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. As the nominal 10-year yield fell, so did 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation. In terms of relative valuation, now TIPS is fairly valued vs. the nominal bonds (panel 2). However, our U.S. Bond Strategy's core PCE model, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (panel 3), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy and that core PCE should reach the Fed's 2% target later this year. This suggests that the bond markets are not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic backdrop. Overweight Inflation-linked JGBs (JGBi) vs. Nominal JGBs. Inflation in Japan has been falling despite strong GDP growth. However, the labor market has not been this tight since the mid-1990s, with the unemployment rate at 3.1% and jobs-to-applicants ratio at 1.49, both post-1995 extremes (Chart 21, panel 2). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy service believes that wage pressures, in addition to the inflationary effect of a weakening yen, could lead inflation higher. Accordingly, inflation-linked JGBs offer good value relative to nominal JGBs (Chart 21, panel 1). Chart 20Inflationary Pressures Are Building Chart 21Overweight JGBi Vs JGB Corporate Bonds Given our expectations that global growth will remain robust over the coming 12 months, pushing the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield above 3%, we continue to favor credit over government bonds. However, U.S. corporate health has deteriorated further in the past two quarters (Chart 22) and so, when the next recession comes, returns from corporate credit may be particularly bad. We cut our double overweight in investment grade debt to single overweight. The spread over Treasuries of U.S. IG credit has fallen to around 100 bps. Given high U.S. corporate leverage currently, it is unlikely that the spread will tighten any further to reach previous lows (Chart 23), so investors will benefit only from the carry. Moreover, the ECB is likely to reduce its bond buying from January 2018 and, though it is unclear whether it will taper corporate as well as sovereign purchases, this represents a potential headwind for European credit. Remain overweight high yield debt. U.S. junk bonds have been remarkably resilient in the face of falling oil prices and the subsequent blowout in energy bond spreads. The default-adjusted spread is just over 200 bps (Chart 24), based on Moody's default assumption of 2.7% over the next 12 months and a recovery rate of 47%. Historically, a spread of this size has produced an excess return over the following year 74% of the time, for an average of 84 bps. Chart 22U.S. Corporate Health Deteriorating Chart 23IG Spreads Unlikely To Tighten Further Chart 24Junk Spreads Give Sufficient Reward Commodities Chart 25Mixed Feelings Towards Commodities Secular Perspective: Bearish: We continue to hold a negative secular outlook for commodities (Chart 25). A gradual shift towards a service-led economy in China, combined with sluggish global growth, will prevent demand from rising further. This lack of demand, together with record high inventory levels for major commodities, keep us from turning bullish. Cyclical Perspective: Neutral We are positive on oil because we believe that inventories will continue to draw. We are negative on base metals due to weak demand and excess supply. We are somewhat bullish on precious metals based on the political uncertainties ahead. Energy: Bullish OPECextended its production cuts for another nine months, carrying the cuts through to Q1, when the oil price is typically seasonally weak. We expect demand growth will increasingly outpace production growth in 2017, producing inventory drawdowns. The current weakness in the crude price is largely due to investors' concerns over shale production. However, the OPEC cut of 1.2 MMb/d, supplemented by an additional 200,000 - 300,000 b/d of voluntary restrictions on non-OPEC oil, are enough to offset any spurt in shale production. Base metals: Bearish China is slowly tightening monetary policy and, following the 19th Communist Party Congress later this year, reflationary stimulus will probably continue to wind down. We have seen a cooling in the Chinese property market along with a slowdown in the manufacturing sector. The Caixin manufacturing PMI, a key indicator for metals demand, fell below 50 in May for the first time in 11 months. At the same time, inventories for copper and iron ore have risen. Precious metals: Long-term Bullish Inflation has not picked up as we expected, which may prevent the gold price from rising further in 2017. However, we expect inflation to move higher going into 2018. As a safe haven, gold is also a good hedge against geopolitical risks. We believe that the political risks in 2018 are underestimated, especially the Italian general election (probably in March or April). Currencies Chart 26Fed Will Support The Dollar In 2017, the U.S. dollar (Chart 26) has weakened by 5% on a trade-weighted basis. However, we believe that the soft patch in inflation and wage data that caused this weakness is temporary and that underlying economic momentum remains strong. Following its rate hike in June, the Fed kept its forecast for core PCE in 2018 and 2019 at 2%. As inflation and wage pressures return, market expectations will converge with the Fed's forecast. The subsequent improvement in relative interest rates will support the dollar. Euro: The euro is up by 8% versus the dollar so far this year. The ECB is likely to continue to set policy for the weakest members of the euro zone, in the absence of a major pickup in inflation. While economic activity has improved, inflation has recently fallen back again, along with the oil price. The ECB is particularly sensitive to political uncertainty surrounding the upcoming Italian elections and the fragility of the Italian banking system. This suggests that the ECB will only gradually taper its asset purchases starting early next year, but will not move to raise rates until at least mid-2019. This is likely to cause the euro to weaken over the coming months. Yen: The yen has strengthened by 4% versus the dollar year to date. With core core inflation in Japan struggling to stay above 0%, we think it highly likely that the BOJ will continue its yield curve control policy. If, as we expect, U.S. long-term interest rate trend up in the coming months, relative rates will put downward pressure on the yen. Our FX strategists expect the USD/JPY at 125 within 12 months. EM Currencies: With Chinese growth likely to remain questionable over the coming months, emerging market currencies will lack their biggest tailwind. Terms of trade will continue to turn negative as commodity prices weaken. EM monetary authorities will mostly be easing policy in order to support growth. With rates kept low, relative monetary policy is likely to will force EM currencies, especially those for commodity exporters, to depreciate from current levels. Alternatives Chart 27Attractive Risk-Return Profile Return Enhancers: Favor private equity vs. hedge funds In 2016, private equity returned 9%, whereas hedge funds managed only a 3% return (Chart 27). Strong performance led to private equity funds raising $378 bn last year, the highest level of capital secured since the Global Financial Crisis. By contrast, hedge funds have underperformed global equities and private equity since the financial crisis of 2008-09. However, investors have become increasingly concerned with valuation levels in private markets. Our recommendation is that investors should continue to overweight private equity vs hedge funds, since we do not see a recession as likely over the next 12 months. Within the hedge fund space, we would recommend overweighting event-driven funds over the cycle, and macro funds heading into a recession (please see our Special Report, dated June 16, 2017). Inflation Hedges: Favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures In 2016, direct real estate returned 9%, whereas commodity futures achieved 12%. Given the structural nature of this recommendation, investors need to look past recent short-term moves in commodity prices. Low interest rates will keep borrowing cheap, making the spread between real estate and fixed income yields continue to be attractive. Moreover, with 48% of institutional investors currently below their target allocation for real estate, there is a lot of potential for further capital allocations to the asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of China to a services-based economy will lead to a structural decline in commodity demand. Investors should continue to overweight direct real estate vs commodity futures on a 3-5 year target horizon. Volatility Dampeners: Favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products In 2016, farmland and timberland returned 9% and 3% respectively, whereas structured products returned 2%. Farmland and timberland will continue to benefit from favorable global demographic trends, as a growing population and improving prosperity in the developing world increase food consumption. However, increased volatility in lumber and agriculture prices have made investors concerned about cash flows. With regards to structured products, increasing rates and deteriorating credit quality in the auto loan market will slow credit origination. Given that the Fed will start unwinding its balance sheet this year, increased supply will put upward pressure on spreads. Investors can reduce the volatility of a multi-asset portfolio with the inclusion of farmland and timberland. Risks To Our View We explained the two alternative scenarios to our main view in the Overview section of this Quarterly. There are three other specific areas where our views differ notably from the consensus: Strong dollar. Our view is predicated on the Fed tightening policy more than the market currently expects, and the ECB less. Interest rate differentials (Chart 28) certainly point to a stronger USD, and speculative positions have reversed from being very dollar-long at the start of the year. But the euro momentum could continue for a while, especially given mixed messages from Mario Draghi, for example when he said in late June that "the threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." Crude oil back at $55. Our Energy strategists believe that the oil price is currently being driven by supply, not demand. They argue that OPEC production cuts will hold and cause inventories to draw down rapidly over the coming six months. However, speculative positioning in oil has shifted from very long to significantly short since the start of the year. The risk is that U.S. oil production continues to accelerate (Chart 29), as fracking technology improves and availability of capital for oil producers remains easy. Negative on EM. Our 12-month EM view is predicated on a stronger dollar, higher U.S. interest rates, slowing Chinese growth, and falling commodity prices. We could be wrong about these drivers. Falling inflation in emerging markets such as Brazil (Chart 30) could allow central banks to cut rates aggressively, which might temporarily boost growth. Chart 28Rate Differentials Suggest Strong Dollar Chart 29Oil Bears Point To U.S. Output Chart 30Sharp Fall In Brazilian Inflation 1 Our U.S. Bond Strategists explain the detailed thinking behind these three scenarios in their Weekly Report "Three Scenarios for Treasury Yields In 2017," dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Market-cap weighted average of Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook. 3 Market-cap weighted average of Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, Oracle and Lucent. Recommended Asset Allocation

Feature Chart 1Global Growth Pick Up As a whole, G10 economies have been in expansion for more than seven years now. Moreover, after a near-recessionary episode in late 2015 / early 2016, the global economy is on a renewed upswing, with global trade and capex having regained vigor (Chart 1). Similar upswings in aged economic expansions have historically been the ideal breeding ground for global monetary tightening. However, the world economy is still dealing with two deflationary anchors: two decades of over-investment in emerging markets that have led to chronic overcapacity globally, and a strong preference for savings - a legacy of the great financial crisis (GFC) in the West and of financial repression in China. Thanks to this confluence of forces, global central banks have been fearful of tightening policy, hence, global policy rates continue to hover near multi-generational lows. Yet, now that the Federal Reserve has opened Pandora's box and raised rates four times, the question on every investor's mind is who is next. In this piece, we examine a few key domestic indicators for each G10 central bank (CB), and try to categorize CBs according to their likelihood of being the next one to tighten policy. We find three groups. The first one with the highest likelihood of hiking includes New Zealand, Sweden, and Canada. We place Australia, the U.K., and the Euro Area in the somewhat-likely-to-tighten camp. Finally, among the economies where we see little scope for tighter policy are Norway, Switzerland, and Japan. Using this ranking, we examine the implications for these countries' respective currencies and equity markets' relative performance. In this optic, it is important to remember that while conventional wisdom dictates that the stock market needs a depreciating currency in order to advance, empirically, countries with appreciating exchange rates have tended to outperform the global equity benchmark, reflecting the effect of international flows into these economies and markets.1 Finally, we look forward to publish in the coming months a quantitative model based on the indicators used in this report. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy & U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Most Likely To Increase Rates First: 1) New Zealand Chart 2New Zealand The real Official Cash Rate has never been at such a discount to trend real GDP growth (Chart 2). As a result, nominal GDP is growing at a strong 6% a year, and core inflation is moving back toward 2%. Additionally, nominal retail sales are expanding at nearly 8% per year, the highest pace since 2007. According to the OECD, GDP is now nearly 2% above trend, which highlights the inflationary nature of New Zealand's economy. Supporting that, capacity constraints are becoming rampant, despite strong immigration into the country, unemployment is now nearly 1% below equilibrium, further confirming that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is keeping policy at too-stimulative levels. This time around, hiking rates will not be a policy mistake as it was in both 2010 and 2014. In 2010, the difference between real rates and trend real GDP growth was much narrower than today, and the output gap was still very negative. In 2014, measures of slack were also not supportive of higher rates, and a rollover in core inflation as well as muted retail sales growth created additional headwinds. Most Likely To Increase Rates First: 2) Sweden Chart 3Sweden The Riksbank's repo rate has been driven lower in response to the European Central Bank's own bias, resulting in a Swedish repo rate of -0.5%. The gap between the real policy rate in Sweden and trend GDP growth is hovering around record-low levels (Chart 3). Supported by such a stimulative policy setting, Swedish non-financial private credit has expanded massively, hitting 230% of GDP. Today, the output gap is in positive territory and the unemployment gap indicates that the labor market has tightened considerably. In fact, both measures are congruent with the levels recorded during prior rate-tightening cycles. Core inflation is still below the central bank's 2% target, but is accelerating higher. The Riksbank's resource utilization indicator is further confirming this trend and points toward much higher inflation in the second half of 2017.2 Retail sales have been soggy, but they are picking up anew, clearing the way for a rate hike. Crucially, under the tutelage of Stefan Ingves, the Riksbank has been extremely dovish, but his second term as head of the institution ends this year. For now, he does not look set to be re-appointed. His re-appointment constitutes the greatest risk to our Riksbank view. Most Likely To Increase Rates First: 3) Canada Chart 4Canada The gap between the real policy rate and trend real GDP growth is still very negative, much more so in fact than was the case in 2010, the last time the Bank of Canada (BoC) tried to hike interest rates. The output gap and the unemployment gap continue to point toward a small degree of slack in the Canadian economy (Chart 4). Nonetheless, the BoC expects the output gap to close in 2018. However, the amount of slack in the economy remains very low compared to what prevailed in 2010. Like in the U.S., core inflation has recently sagged, but retail sales continue to grow at a healthy pace. Canadian policy rates have rarely diverged from those in the U.S. for long as the Canadian economy is deeply integrated in the U.S. supply chain. This means that economic impulses in the U.S. are often transferred to Canada. The Fed increasing rates in the U.S. puts pressure on the BoC. If rates diverge for too long, the Loonie will weaken considerably, exacerbating inflationary pressures in Canada. Recent communications of the BoC's most senior staff indicate a very sharp move away from dovishness. Middle Of The Pack: 1) Australia Chart 5Australia The gap between real policy rates and trend real GDP growth is in stimulative territory, but it is not at the level seen in New Zealand, Sweden or Canada. While the unemployment gap suggests the labor market is becoming increasingly tight, the OECD's measure of the output gap still stands near record lows, suggesting that in aggregate there remains substantial slack in Australia (Chart 5). This paints a mixed picture rather than an indubitably good or bad one. Core inflation remains in a downtrend and nominal retail sales are growing at very low rates, further highlighting that monetary policy is not as accommodative as in New Zealand or Canada. Improvement in global trade continues to support the Australian economy, and strong real estate activity suggests that policy is too easy for domestic asset prices. These two forces are critical in preventing Australia from falling into the bottom basket of central banks. Even if a small deceleration in global activity emerges, so long as it does not degenerate into the kind of vicious commodity selloff experienced in the second half of 2015 and early 2016, the Australian economy will be able to avoid another deceleration. Middle Of The Pack: 2) The U.K. Chart 6U.K. On many fronts, the U.K. looks ripe for an imminent rate hike. The gap between the real policy rate and trend real GDP growth is as depressed as the levels recorded in the countries in the first bucket, suggesting that the Bank of England's policy stance is extremely accommodative (Chart 6). However, like in Australia, measures of economic slack paint a mixed picture. The unemployment gap points to an absence of slack, while the output gap remains negative and indicative of some slack in the U.K. Retail sales have been lifted by the recent surge in inflation, with core consumer prices now growing at a 2.6% annual rate. However, this picture is distorted. Real retail sales have massively decelerated, and the surge in inflation has had nothing to do with domestic conditions but has been entirely due to the pass-through associated with the near-20% collapse in the trade-weighted pound since November 2015. Beyond the negative output gap, the key reason why the BoE is not at the top of the list of potential hikers is because U.K. household inflation expectations remain well behaved, and the economy could continue to decelerate in the face of uncertainty associated with Brexit. This could even prompt Mark Carney to keep an even more dovish stance that we or the market currently anticipate. Middle Of The Pack: 3) The Euro Area Chart 7Euro Area The gap between the real policy rate and trend real GDP growth in the euro area is actually also at extremely stimulative levels (Chart 7), partly explaining why the European economy has been able to generate so many positive data surprises. However, the euro area economy still needs easy policy. The output gap remains very negative and unemployment is still below equilibrium. In fact, as we have argued, this latter indicator may even underestimate the amount of labor market slack in Europe, as measures of labor underutilization remain very elevated. Euro area core inflation has been moving up, but at around 1% remains well shy of the ECB's objective of close to but below 2%. True, officially the ECB targets headline inflation, but Draghi's emphasis on underlying domestic inflation trends belies a focus on core inflation. Ultimately, the combination of labor underutilization, simmering political risk in Italy and a still-negative output gap suggests the ECB in unlikely to lift interest rates until at least late 2018. The biggest risk to our view would be for the ECB to tighten policy more than we or even the market anticipate. This would put the ECB ahead of the BoE. The Laggards: 1) Norway Chart 8Norway The gap between Norway's real policy rate and trend real GDP growth is still indicative of an easy policy stance. However, the recent dip in core inflation has caused an inadvertent policy tightening, as illustrated by the gap's sharp narrowing (Chart 8). The OECD's measure of Norway's output gap is very negative, and the unemployment rate has not been this deeply above equilibrium in more than 20 years. As such, there seems to remain large amounts of slack in the Norwegian economy. Corroborating this assessment, Norwegian wages are contracting at a 4% annual pace. Norwegian retail sales have been very weak, and core inflation has collapsed from 4% to 1.5%. This easing in inflation is a blessing for the Norges Bank as this allows it to focus on the large amount of slack still present in the economy. The Laggards: 2) Switzerland Chart 9Switzerland Despite a deeply negative nominal policy rate and a continuously expanding central bank balance sheet, Switzerland monetary policy does not seem to be very easy, as the gap between the real policy rate and the trend real GDP growth rate is in neutral territory (Chart 9). The OECD's output gap and the difference between the headline unemployment rate and equilibrium unemployment rate both point toward plentiful slack in the Swiss economy. Swiss wage growth also remains quite tame, only hitting 0.1% last quarter. Core inflation remains well below target as it only modestly moved back into positive territory three months ago. The confluence of not-so-easy monetary policy and plentiful excess capacity suggests that despite the challenging conditions for Swiss pension plans and insurance companies created by deeply negative rates the Swiss economy is not yet ready to handle tighter monetary policy. The Laggards: 3) Japan Chart 10Japan Japan might be the most perplexing economy in the G10 right now, and the Bank of Japan is in the toughest position of all the major central banks in the advanced economies. Like Switzerland, despite negative nominal short-term interest rates and large asset purchases by the BoJ, the gap between Japan's real policy rates and trend real GDP growth suggests that policy is only at a neutral setting (Chart 10). This would seem appropriate given that both the output gap and the unemployment gap point to little spare capacity in Japan. However, this does not square with core inflation moving back into negative territory and barely expanding retail sales. Ultimately, Japan's problem is two-fold. First, the unemployment gap underestimates the amount of labor underutilization in Japan, as output per hour worked remains 11% and 34% behind that of the OECD and the U.S, respectively. Second, extremely depressed Japanese inflation expectations continue to result in an extraordinarily flat Philips curve. Due to these dynamics, we expect that it will take continued sustained efforts by the BoJ to overheat the economy before any signs of inflation emerge. FX Implications Based on our assessments, we would expect the RBNZ, the Riksbank and the BoC to be the first central banks to hike now that the Fed has blazed the trail. Within this group, the RBNZ is potentially the cleanest story, as all factors are aligned. We would expect the RBNZ to hike late summer / early fall 2017. Technically, the Riksbank seems in a better place to hike rates than the BoC. However, the leadership of the BoC is already preparing the market for higher rates. Canadian rates could also rise as soon as late summer / early fall 2017. Meanwhile, so long as Ingves remains head of the Riksbank, the Swedish central bank will likely stand pat. Thus, we would expect the first hike to materialize early next year, as soon as a new governor takes the helm, although, we believe markets will begin pricing in such a hike as soon as his replacement is announced. In the second group of central banks, we expect the RBA to be the first to increase rates. The BoE does face a much more inflationary environment than the RBA, but the U.K.'s economic uncertainty remains such that the BoE is likely to tread carefully and wait to see how the economy handles the new wave of political trauma unleashed by this month's election. The ECB is likely to begin tapering its own purchases at the end of 2017, but our base case anticipates that it will not touch policy rates until well into 2018. Among the laggards, the Norges Bank will most likely be the first to push up rates - something we do not anticipate until late 2018. While BCA expects oil prices to rebound, this is unlikely to boost the economy fast enough to close the output gap for at least 18 months. Switzerland and Japan need to do a lot of work before their respective economies generate any kind of inflationary pressures. We do not anticipate any tightening for Switzerland until well after the ECB has moved. The BoJ may not tighten policy for the remainder of this decade. This means that the CAD and the NZD are likely to prove to be the best-performing currencies in the dollar bloc. Investors should stay short AUD/NZD and AUD/CAD. CAD/NOK also possesses more upside. The SEK could prove to be the best performing European currency. Swedish money markets are pricing in only 40 basis points of hikes over the next 12 months, something that seems too low considering the inflationary risk in that country. Stay short EUR/SEK. The EUR/USD rebounded this week on the back of seemingly hawkish comments by Draghi. Even when the ECB somewhat backtracked and communicated that the market had misinterpreted the speech, EUR/USD looked the other way. This confirms our fear that the momentum in this pair is too strong to fight. EUR/USD should retest 1.15-1.16, the upper bound of its trading range put in place since March 2015. Based on our economics work, any move above 1.15 should be used to short the euro. The pound will continue to suffer from a political discount, however, because our base case expects the BoE to tighten policy before the ECB, we continue to recommend that investors use moves above 0.88 to begin shorting EUR/GBP. The SNB is unlikely to remove its cap on the Swiss franc, which means the natural upward pull created by the large net international position of Switzerland will be of little solace for investors. Finally, the JPY should be the worst performing currency in the G10 as the BoJ will not be able to lift rates - a great handicap when, as BCA expects, global bond yields are likely to enjoy more upside than downside over the next 12 months. Equity Implications U.S. Equities Chart 11U.S. Contrary to popular belief equities and the currency are joined at the hip especially during currency bull markets. A rising currency tends to attract flows and equities outperform in common and local currency terms. Keep in mind that domestic equity exposure dominates stock market weightings, further solidifying the positive currency and equity correlation. The top panel of Chart 11 shows that this relationship is extremely tight in the U.S. with equities outperforming the MSCI ACWI when the dollar advances and suffering a setback when the greenback depreciates. The Fed has raised rates three times since December 2015 and is slated to tighten monetary policy one more time later this year. This is well telegraphed to the markets, and thus the U.S. dollar has been in sell off mode for the past 6 months, weighing on relative equity performance. The relative economic surprise indexes also have an excellent track record in forecasting relative equity momentum, and the current message is grim for relative share prices. We expect the U.S. to continue to trail other G10 bourses in the coming months and the MSCI ACWI as other CBs have more scope to tighten monetary policy, and recommend an underweight stance in global equity portfolios. Bank/financials performance is also closely linked to monetary policy. While the yield curve flattening tends to suppress net interest margins (NIM), the recovery in loan volumes and drop in NPLs owing to a pickup in economic growth more than offsets the fall in NIMs. We continue to recommend overweight exposure in U.S. banks/financials both in global and U.S. only portfolios.3 New Zealand Equities Chart 12New Zealand The positive stock and currency correlation exists in New Zealand. Currently, the Kiwi has been rising, but relative equities have not followed suit. If our analysis proves prescient and the RBNZ becomes the next G10 CB to hike, then a playable relative equity catch up phase will materialize (Chart 12). The relative surprise index is firing on all cylinders and corroborates the bullish economic message from our macro analysis and hints that New Zealand equities are a buy. We recommend an overweight stance in New Zealand stocks in global equity portfolios. While all the rest of the G10 have a domestic banking sector, New Zealand is the exception. Australian banks dominate the banking scene in New Zealand, and thus serve as a good proxy. We are comfortable to have a modest Australian banks/financials exposure in New Zealand only portfolios. However, there is one caveat: the housing market is bubbly. While excesses are well documented, we doubt that the housing markets would burst either in Australia or in New Zealand in the coming 6-12 months and bring down the Australian banking sector. In such a time frame, both CBs will still be early in their respective tightening cycles. Swedish Equities Chart 13Sweden The Swedish krona moves in lockstep with relative share prices, a relationship that has been in place for the better part of the past two decades (Chart 13). Were the Riksbank to raise the policy rate from deeply negative territory, as our macroeconomic analysis pegs it as second most likely, then equities will outperform the MSCI ACWI, and we recommend an above benchmark allocation in global equity portfolios. Economic surprises in Sweden continue to outnumber the G10, heralding additional momentum gains in relative share prices (bottom panel). The elimination of NIRP would also benefit the banking sector. NIRP serves as a noose around banks' necks, as bankers cannot pass on NIRP to retail depositors weighing on NIMs. Chart 21 in the Appendix shows that Swedish financials comprise over 30% of the overall Swedish market and drive overall market performance. Thus, we are comfortable with an overweight stance in financials in Swedish only equity portfolios given the prospects of tighter monetary policy in the coming quarters. Canadian Equities Chart 14Canada The Loonie and relative equity performance also move in tandem (Chart 14). At the current juncture the bear market in oil prices has dampened both the currency and equities, as Canada is an excellent proxy for commodity prices in general and oil prices in particular. The BoC is the third most likely CB to raise interest rates in the coming months according to our analysis, raising the odds of a reversal of fortunes for Canadian equities. The relative economic surprise index is surging, opening a wide gap with relative share price momentum. If our thesis proves accurate and the BoC pulls the trigger soon, then Canadian equities will gain some traction. Under such a backdrop we recommend an overweight stance in global equity portfolios. In terms of financials, Canadian financials' market capitalization weight is the second largest in the G10, exerting significant influence in overall equity direction. If the commodity complex is healthy enough for the BoC to tighten monetary policy, then banks will outperform on the back of firming loan growth and receding commodity related NPLs. Nevertheless, the housing market poses a clear risk. Were a housing crisis to grip the Canadian economy, bank earnings and thus performance would suffer a sizable blow. Our sense is that such an outcome is highly unlikely in the next year, making us comfortable recommending overweight financials exposure in Canadian only equity portfolios. Australian Equities Chart 15Australia The positive correlation between FX rates and relative equity performance is prevalent in Australia (Chart 15). Currently, the Aussie has stayed resilient, but equities have given way suffering alongside commodities in general and iron ore prices in particular. The RBA sits in the middle of the pack in terms of hiking interest rates next according to our thesis, but still remains the fourth most likely CB in the G10 to pull the trigger ahead of the BoE and the ECB. As such, we recommend a neutral weight in global equity portfolios. While the relative economic surprise index has vaulted higher, the positive correlation with relative share price momentum seems to have broken down in recent years. Similar to Canada, Australian financials comprise a large chunk of the broad equity market (see Chart 21 in the Appendix on page 24), setting the tone for overall equity returns. If Canada's housing market is frothy, then Australia is a definite bubble and poses a significant risk to the banking sector. The APRA is breathing down banks' necks and that is reflected in recent bank underperformance. As we mentioned earlier, we doubt the Australian housing market blows up in the next 6-12 months as the RBA will be in the early innings of a tightening cycle. As a result, only a benchmark allocation is warranted in Australian banks in Australian only portfolios. U.K. Equities Chart 16U.K. Cable and relative U.K. equity performance also follow our currency/FX positive correlation playbook (Chart 16). Relative share prices have ticked up recently taking cue from the rebound in sterling. British economic surprises have been outnumbering the G10 post Brexit, and sport a positive correlation with relative share price momentum. Our U.K. macroeconomic analysis highlights that the BoE stands right in the middle of the CB pack. Importantly, the BoE is our "surprise risk" of staying easy for longer than the economic variables would suggest as the dust clears from the Brexit aftermath. Under such a backdrop we recommend a modest underweight in U.K. equities in global equity portfolios. Similarly, U.K. banks also warrant a slight underweight stance in U.K. only equity portfolios. Eurozone Equities Chart 17Euro Area Euro area stocks and the euro have been positively correlated especially since 2003. Year-to-date EUR/USD is up roughly 10% and Eurozone equities have been stellar outperformers. The catalyst for the euro's sizable gains has been the market's realization that the ECB passed its maximum easing in Q1/2017. Receding geopolitical uncertainty has also played a key role. In addition, the economy has responded well both to the extraordinarily easy monetary policy measures and move away from austerity. The bottom panel of the Chart 17 shows that relative economic surprises are probing 5-year highs pulling relative equity momentum higher. While our macro analysis suggests that the ECB stays pat for a while longer, our "surprise risk" is that the ECB moves earlier than we expect and removes some of the extreme monetary accommodation. As a result we continue to recommend above benchmark exposure both in Eurozone equities and banks/financials. Importantly, not only will euro area banks benefit from the eventual ECB's removal of NIRP and the related boost to NIMs, but also NPLs have peaked and will continue to drift lower along with the unemployment rate. More recently, the speedy and contained resolution of two Italian bank failures along with the absorption of two Spanish banks by Santander and Bankia are a giant step in the right direction. These moves also suggest that there is political will to overcome the banking issues in the euro area. Additional bank cleanup is likely and this is a welcome development in the Eurozone that should entice healthier banks to extend credit to the economy. Norwegian Equities Chart 18Norway Over the past two decades, the Norwegian krone and relative equity performance have moved in lockstep (Chart 18). Year-to-date, relative Norwegian equities have fallen to fresh cycle lows. Similar to Canada, the country's substantial oil dependency has weighed on relative share prices and also knocked down the krone. Our macro analysis concluded that the Norges Bank will be late in lifting interest rate and sits at the bottom of the G10 CBs. As a result, we recommend underweight exposure in Norwegian stocks in global equity portfolios. Financials in Norway comprise one fifth of the stock market's capitalization (Chart 21 in the Appendix on page 24) and have been on a nearly uninterrupted run since the end of the GFC and catapulted to multi-decade highs. Given our thesis of the Norges Bank staying late in raising rates we recommend lightening up on financials equities in Norwegian only equity portfolios. Swiss Equities Chart 19Switzerland Since the late 1990s relative Swiss share prices and the CHF have been enjoying an almost perfect positive correlation (Chart 19). At the current juncture Swiss stocks have been propelling higher versus the MSCI ACWI as the franc has been appreciating. There are extremely low odds that the SNB would move the needle in terms of normalizing interest rates any time soon, according to our analysis. Keep in mind that the SNB is conducting the ultimate QE experiment by purchasing U.S. stocks, underscoring that there are a lot of layers/levers of momentary policy easing that it will have to eventually to unwind. The implication is that we would lean against recent strength in the Swiss equity market and recommend a below benchmark allocation. Switzerland financials have the third lowest market cap weight in the G10 as UBS and CS are still licking their wounds from the aftermath of the GFC. Relative financials performance has been soft and taken a turn for the worse recently in marked contrast with global financials exuberance since Brexit. Our macro analysis suggests that a below benchmark allocation is warranted in financials in Swiss only portfolios. Japanese Equities Chart 20Japan The Japanese yen and relative equity performance were joined at the hip from the mid-1990s until 2009. From the end of the GFC until 2015 this correlation broke down as Japan has been in-and-out of recession. Since then however, there is tentative evidence that Japanese equities and the yen have resumed moving in tandem (Chart 20). Our macroeconomic analysis suggests that Japan will be the last G10 CB to lift interest rates. While our study would signal that investors should avoid Japanese equities, we do not have high confidence in that view. The break and resumption in the equity/currency correlation is worrisome and suggests that other more important factors are in play dictating relative share price performance. As a result, we would modestly overweight Japanese equities in global equity portfolios in line with BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service view.4 On the financials front, relative performance in Japan has fallen into oblivion. NIRP is anchoring NIMs. But, an extremely low unemployment rate suggests that NPLs will continue to probe multi decade lows and provide an offset to bank EPS. Thus, we would stick with a neutral weighting in Japanese financials.5 Appendix Chart 21G10 Financial Market Cap Weights 1 For a more detailed discussion on the correlation between equity prices and the currency market, please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Can The S&P 500 Rise Alongside The U.S. Dollar?", dated October 7, 206, available at gss.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Central Banks Are Sticking To Their Guns", dated June 16, 017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Girding For A Breakout?", dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy - Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter 2017: Aging Bull", June 30, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Year Of The Letter "R"", January 13, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Economic Outlook: Global growth will remain strong over the next 12 months, but will start to slow in the second half of 2018, potentially setting the stage for a recession in 2019. Overall Strategy: Investors should overweight equities and spread product for now. However, be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Fixed Income: Maintain below benchmark duration exposure over the next 12 months. Underweight U.S. Treasurys, stay neutral Europe, and overweight Japan. Equities: Remain overweight developed market equities relative to their EM peers. Within the DM sphere, favor the euro area and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. In the EM universe, Chinese H-shares have significant upside. Currencies: The selloff in the dollar is overdone. The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% before peaking in mid-2018. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar, as does the euro. Commodities: Oil will rally over the coming months as global inventories decline. Gold will continue to struggle, before exploding higher towards the end of this decade. Feature I. Global Macro Outlook End Of The Global Manufacturing Recession Global growth estimates have been trending higher over the past 12 months, having bottomed last summer. Ironically, the collapse in oil prices in late 2014 was both the main reason for the deterioration in global growth as well as its subsequent rebound. Plunging oil prices led to a massive decline in capital spending in the energy sector and associated industries. In the U.S., energy capex dropped by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016. The economic fallout was even more severe in many other economies, especially emerging markets such as Russia and Brazil. The result was a global manufacturing recession and a pronounced slump in international trade (Chart 1). When thinking about oil and the economy, the distinction between levels and rates of change is important: While rapidly falling oil prices tend to be bad for global growth, lower oil prices are good for it. By the middle of 2016, the damage from the oil crash had largely run its course. What was left was a massive windfall for households, especially poorer ones who spend a disproportionate share of their paychecks at the pump. Industries that use oil as an input also benefited. Simply put, the oil crash went from being a bane to a boon for the global economy. A Solid 12-Month Outlook We expect global growth to remain firm over the next 12 months. Financial conditions in most countries have eased substantially since the start of the year thanks to rising equity prices, lower bond yields, and narrower credit spreads (Chart 2). Our empirical analysis suggests that easier financial conditions tend to lift growth with a lag of 6-to-9 months (Chart 3). This bodes well for activity in the remainder of this year. Chart 1The Manufacturing Recession Has Ended Chart 2Financial Conditions Have Eased Globally A number of "virtuous cycles" should amplify the effects of easier financial conditions. In the U.S., a tight labor market will lead to faster wage growth, helping to spur consumption. Rising household spending, in turn, will lead to lower unemployment and even faster wage growth. Strong consumption growth will also motivate firms to expand capacity, translating into more investment spending. Chart 4 shows that the share of U.S. firms planning to increase capital expenditures has risen to a post-recession high. Chart 3Easier Financial Conditions Will Support Growth Chart 4U.S. Firms Plan To Boost Capex The euro area economy continues to chug along. The purchasing manager indices (PMIs) dipped a bit in June, but remain at levels consistent with above-trend growth. The German Ifo business confidence index hit a record high this week. Corporate balance sheets in the euro area are improving and credit growth is accelerating. This is helping to fuel a rebound in business investment (Chart 5). The fact that the ECB has no intention of raising rates anytime soon will only help matters. As inflation expectations begin to recover, short-term real rates will fall. This will lead to a virtuous circle of stronger growth, and even higher inflation expectations. The Japanese economy managed to grow by an annualized 1% in the first quarter. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter of positive sequential growth, the longest streak in 11 years. Exports are recovering and both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs stand near record-high levels (Chart 6). Chart 5Euro Area Data Remain Upbeat Chart 6Japanese Economy Is Rebounding Chart 7China: Slight Slowdown, But No Need To Worry The Chinese economy has slowed a notch since the start of the year, but remains robust (Chart 7). Real-time measures of industrial activity such as railway freight traffic, excavator sales, and electricity production are rising at a healthy clip. Exports are accelerating thanks to a weaker currency and stronger global growth. Retail sales continue to expand, while the percentage of households that intend to buy a new home has surged to record-high levels. The rebound in Chinese exports and industrial output is helping to lift producer prices. Higher selling prices, in turn, are fueling a rebound in industrial company profits (Chart 8). A better profit picture should support business capital spending in the coming months. Meanwhile, the Chinese government's "regulatory windstorm" - as the local press has called it - has largely bypassed the real economy. In fact, medium and long-term lending to nonfinancial corporations, a key driver of private-sector capital spending and physical commodity demand, has actually accelerated over the past eight months (Chart 9). Chart 8China: Higher Selling Prices Fueling A Rebound In Profits Chart 9China: Credit To The Real Economy Is Accelerating All Good Things Must Come To An End We remain optimistic about global growth over the next 12 months. Unfortunately, things are likely to sour in the second half of 2018, possibly setting the stage for a recession in the U.S. and several other countries in 2019. The odds of a recession rise when economies approach full employment (Chart 10). The U.S. unemployment rate now stands at 4.3% and is on track to break below its 2000 low of 3.8% next summer. A cursory look at the data suggests that the unemployment rate is usually either rising or falling (Chart 11). And once it starts rising, it keeps rising. In fact, there has never been a case in the postwar era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession ensuing. Chart 10Recessions Become More Likely When The Labor Market Begins To Overheat Chart 11Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Modern economies contain numerous feedback loops. When unemployment starts increasing, this fuels a vicious cycle where rising joblessness saps confidence and incomes, leading to less spending and even higher unemployment. History suggests that it is almost impossible to break this cycle once it starts. The Fed is well aware of the risks of letting the unemployment rate fall to a level where it has nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, calibrating monetary policy in a way that achieves a soft landing is easier said than done. Changes in monetary conditions affect the economy with a lag of about 12-to-18 months. Once it has become obvious that a central bank has either loosened or tightened monetary policy too much, it is often too late to right the ship. The risks of a policy error are particularly high in today's environment where there is significant uncertainty about the level of the long-term neutral rate. Question marks about the future stance of fiscal policy will also complicate the Fed's job. We expect the Trump administration to succeed in passing legislation that cuts both personal and corporate income taxes later this year or in early 2018. The bill will be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This will generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. That being said, the proposed changes to health care legislation could more than neutralize the effects of lower tax rates. The Senate bill, as currently worded, would lead to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Our base case is that Republicans in Congress fail to pass a new health care bill, thus leaving the Affordable Care Act largely unscathed. However, if they succeed, the overall stance of federal fiscal policy would likely shift from being somewhat accommodative, on net, to somewhat restrictive. This would expedite the timing of the recession. How Deep A Recession? If the U.S. does succumb to a recession in 2019, how bad will it be? Here, there is both good news and bad news. The good news is that financial and economic imbalances are not as severe today as those that existed in the lead-up to the past few recessions. The Great Recession was preceded by a massive housing bubble, associated with overbuilding and a sharp deterioration in mortgage lending standards (Chart 12). Today, residential investment stands at 3.9% of GDP, compared to a peak of 6.6% of GDP Q1 of 2006. Lending standards, at least judging by FICO scores, have remained fairly high over the course of the recovery. In relation to income and rents, home prices are also much lower today than they were a decade ago. Likewise, the massive capex overhang that preceded the 2001 recession is largely absent at present. Chart 12No New Bubble In The U.S. Housing Sector Chart 13Consumer Credit: Making A Comeback... The bad news is that cracks in the economy are starting to form. In contrast to mortgage debt, student debt has gone through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 13). Not surprisingly, this is starting to translate into higher default rates (Chart 14). The fact that this is happening when the unemployment rate is at the lowest level in 16 years is a cause for concern. Meanwhile, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen above 2000 levels and is closing in on its 2007 peak (Chart 15). Chart 14...With Defaults Starting To Rise In Some Categories Chart 15U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit We are particularly worried about the health of the commercial real estate (CRE) market. CRE prices currently stand 7% above pre-recession levels in real terms, having risen by a staggering 82% since the start of 2010 (Chart 16). U.S. financial institutions hold $3.8 trillion in CRE loans, $2 trillion of which are held by banks. As a share of GDP, the outstanding stock of CRE bank loans in most categories is near pre-recession levels (Chart 17). Chart 16Commercial Real Estate Prices Have Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Chart 17CRE Debt Is Rising The retail sector is already under intense pressure due to the shift in buying habits towards E-commerce. Vacancy rates in the apartment sector have started to tick higher and rent growth has slowed (Chart 18 and Chart 19). The number of apartment units under construction stands at a four-decade high, despite a structurally subdued pace of household formation (Chart 20). Most of these units are likely to hit the market in 2018, which will result in a further increase in vacancy rates. Vacancies in the office sector are also likely to rise, given the recent increase in the number of new projects in the pipeline. On the flipside, demand growth for new office space is set to weaken, as a tighter labor market leads to slower payroll gains. Chart 18Vacancy Rates Are Bottoming Outside The Industrial Sector... Chart 19...While Rent Growth Is Losing Steam If vacancy rates across the CRE sector start rising in earnest, real estate prices will fall, leading to a decline in the value of the collateral backing CRE loans. This could prompt lenders to pull back credit, causing prices to fall further. Seasoned real estate investors are no strangers to such vicious cycles, and if the next one begins late next year when growth is slowing because the economy is running out of spare capacity and financial conditions are tightening, it would further add to the risks of a recession. Chart 20Apartment Supply Is Surging, But Will There Be Enough Demand? Gauging The Global Spillover Effects What repercussions would a U.S. recession have for the rest of the world? Simply based on trade flows, the answer is "not much." U.S. imports account for less than 5% of global ex-U.S. GDP. Thus, even a significant decline in U.S. spending abroad would not make much of a dent in overseas growth. More worrisome are potential financial spillovers. As the IMF has documented, these have been the dominant drivers of the global business cycle in the modern era.1 Chart 21Global Debt Levels Are Still High Correlations across global markets tend to increase when risk sentiment deteriorates. Thus, if U.S. stocks buckle in the face of rising recessionary risks, risk assets in other economies are sure to suffer. The fact that valuations are stretched across so many markets only makes the problem worse. A flight towards safety could trigger a pronounced decline in global equity prices, wider credit spreads, and lower property prices. This, in turn, could lead to a sharp decline in household and corporate net worth, resulting in tighter financial conditions and more stringent lending standards. Elevated debt levels represent another major source of vulnerability. Total debt as a share of GDP is greater now than it was before the Great Recession in both advanced and emerging markets (Chart 21). High debt burdens will prevent governments from loosening fiscal policy in countries that are unable to issue their own currencies. The monetary transmission mechanism also tends to be less effective in the presence of high debt. This is especially the case in today's environment where the zero lower-bound on nominal interest rates remains a formidable challenge. The presence of these fiscal and monetary constraints implies that the severity of the next recession could be somewhat greater than one might expect based solely on the underlying causes of the downturn. II. Financial Markets Overall Strategy The discussion above implies that the investment outlook over the next few years is likely to be of the "one step forward, two steps back" variety. The global economy is entering a blow-off stage where growth will get better before it gets worse. We are bullish on global equities and spread product over the next 12 months, but expect to turn bearish on risk assets next summer. Until then, investors should position for a stronger dollar and higher bond yields. We recommend a slight overweight allocation to developed market equities over their EM peers. Within the DM sphere, we favor the euro area and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. In the EM universe, Chinese H-shares stand out as offering an attractive risk-reward profile. Comparing government bonds, we are underweight U.S. Treasurys, neutral on European bonds, and overweight Japan. These recommendations are broadly in line with the output of our in-house quantitative models (Table 1 and Chart 22). Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Chart 22Message From Our U.S. Stock Market ##br##Timing Model Equities Earnings Are Key Earnings have been the main driver of the global equity bull market. In fact, the global forward P/E ratio has actually declined slightly since February, despite a 3.9% gain in equity prices (Chart 23). Strong global growth should continue to boost corporate earnings over the next 12 months. Consensus bottom-up estimates call for global EPS to expand by 14% in 2017 and a further 11% in 2018. The global earnings revision ratio moved into positive territory earlier this year for the first time in six years (Chart 24). Chart 23Earnings Have Been The Main Driver ##br##Of The Global Equity Bull Market Chart 24Global Earnings Picture ##br##Looks Solid Global monetary conditions generally remain favorable. Our U.S. Financial Conditions Index has loosened significantly. Historically, this has been a bullish signal for stocks.2 Excess liquidity, which we define as M2 growth less nominal GDP growth, is also still well above the zero line, a threshold that has warned of a downturn in stock prices in the past. Chart 25Individual Investors Are Not Overly Bullish On U.S. Equities But... Sentiment is stretched, but not excessively so. The share of bullish respondents in the AAII's weekly poll of individual investors stood at 29.7% this week (Chart 25). This marked the 18th consecutive week that optimism has been below its long-term average. Market Vane's survey of traders and Yale's Investor Confidence index paint a more complacent picture, as do other measures such as the VIX and margin debt (Chart 26). Nevertheless, as long as earnings continue to grow and monetary policy remains in expansionary territory, sentiment can remain elevated without being a significant threat to stocks. Overweight The Euro Area And Japan Over The U.S. Regionally, earnings revisions have been more positive in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. so far this year. Net profit margins are also lower in Europe and Japan, which gives these two regions more room for catch-up. Moreover, unlike the Fed, neither the ECB nor the BoJ are likely to raise rates anytime soon. As we discuss in greater detail in the currency section of this report, this should lead to a weaker euro and yen, giving European and Japanese exporters a further leg up in competitiveness. Lastly, valuations are more favorable in the euro area and Japan than in the U.S., even if one adjusts for differing sector weights across the three regions (Chart 27). Chart 26...There Are Signs Of Complacency Chart 27U.S. Valuations Seem Stretched Relative ##br##To Other Bourses Mixed Outlook For EM Earnings growth in emerging markets has accelerated sharply. Bottom-up estimates imply EPS growth of 20% in 2017 and 11% in 2018 for the EM MSCI index. Our EM strategists believe this is too optimistic, given the prospect of a stronger dollar, high debt levels across the EM space, poor corporate governance, and the lack of productivity-enhancing structural reforms. These problems warrant a slight underweight to emerging markets in global equity portfolios. Nevertheless, considering the solid backdrop for global growth, EM stocks should still be able to deliver positive real total returns over the next 12 months. Within the EM space, we favor Russia, central Europe, Korea, Taiwan, India, Thailand, and China. Chinese H-shares, in particular, remain quite attractive, trading at only 7.1-times forward earnings and 1.0-times book value. Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives ... For Now Looking at global equity sectors, upward revisions have been largest for industrials, materials, financials, and real estate. Revisions for energy, health care, and telecom have been negative. We expect cyclical stocks to outperform defensives over the next 12 months. Energy stocks will move from being laggards to leaders, as oil prices rebound. Financials should also do well, as steeper yield curves, increased M&A activity, and falling nonperforming loans bolster profits. Equity Bear Market Will Begin Late Next Year As growth begins to falter in the second half of 2018, stocks will swoon. U.S. equities are likely to fall 20% to 30% peak to trough, marking the first sustained bear market since 2008. Other stock markets will experience similar declines. Global equities will eventually recoup most of their losses at the start of the 2020s, but the recovery will be a lackluster one. As we have argued extensively in the past, global productivity growth is likely to remain weak.3 Population aging will deplete savings, leading to higher real interest rates. The next recession could also propel more populist leaders into power. None of these things would be good for stocks. Against today's backdrop of lofty valuations, global stocks will deliver a total real return in the low single-digit range over the next decade. Fixed Income Bonds Have Overreacted To The Inflation Dip We turned structurally bearish on government bonds on July 5th, 2016. As fate would have it, this was the very same day that the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dropped to a record closing low of 1.37%. The dramatic bond selloff that followed was too much, too fast. We warned at the start of this year that bond yields were likely to climb down from their highs. At this point, however, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of lower yields. Chart 28 shows that almost all of the decline in bond yields has been due to falling inflation expectations. Real yields have remained resilient, suggesting that investors' views of global growth have not changed much. This helps explain why stocks have been able to rally to new highs. The fall in inflation expectations has been largely driven by the decline in commodity prices. Short-term swings in oil prices should not affect long-term inflation expectations, but in practice they do (Chart 29). If oil prices recover in the second half of this year, as we expect, inflation expectations should shift higher as well. This will translate into higher bond yields. Chart 28Inflation Expectations Declined This Year, ##br##But Real Yields Remained Resilient Chart 29Low Oil Prices Drag Down##br## Inflation Expectations U.S. Treasurys Are Most Vulnerable Tightening labor markets should also boost inflation expectations. This is particularly the case in the U.S., where the economy is quickly running out of surplus labor. Some commentators have argued that the headline unemployment rate understates the true amount of economic slack. We are skeptical that this is the case. Table 2 compares a wide variety of measures of labor market slack with where they stood at the height of the business cycle in 2000 and 2007. The main message from the table is that the unemployment rate today is broadly where one would expect it to be based on these collaborating indicators. Table 2Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles 12-MONTH If the U.S. has reached full employment, does the absence of wage pressures signal that the Phillips curve is dead? We don't think so. For one thing, wage growth is not that weak. Our wage growth tracker has risen from a low of 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% at present (Chart 30). In fact, real wages have been rising more quickly than productivity for the past three years (Chart 31). Unit labor cost growth is now just shy of where it was at the peaks of the last two business cycles (Chart 32). Chart 30Stronger Labor Market ##br##Is Leading To Faster Wage Growth Chart 31Real Wages Now Increasing Faster##br## Than Productivity Chart 32Unit Labor Cost Growth Close ##br##To Previous Two Peaks The evidence generally suggests that the Phillips curve becomes "kinked" when the unemployment rate falls towards 4%. In plain English, this means that a drop in the unemployment rate from 10% to 8% tends to have little effect on inflation, while a drop from 4.5% to 3.5% does. The experience of the 1960s is illustrative in that regard. Chart 33 shows that much like today, inflation in the first half of that decade was well anchored at just below 2%. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, inflation took off. Core inflation rose from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in early 1967, ultimately making its way to 6% by 1970. The Fed is keen to avoid a repeat of that episode. In a recent speech, New York Fed President and FOMC vice chairman Bill Dudley warned that "If we were not to withdraw accommodation, the risk would be that the economy would crash to a very, very low unemployment rate, and generate inflation ... Then the risk would be that we would have to slam on the brakes and the next stop would be a recession." If U.S. growth remains firm and inflation rebounds in the second half of this year, as we expect, the Fed will get the green light to keep raising rates in line with the "dots." The market is not prepared for that, as evidenced by the fact that it is pricing in only 27 basis points in rate hikes over the next 12 months. We are positioned for higher rate expectations by being short the January 2018 fed funds contract. The ECB And The BoJ Will Not Follow The Fed's Lead Could better growth prospects cause the ECB and the BoJ to follow in the Fed's footsteps and take away the punch bowl? We doubt it. Investors are reading too much into Mario Draghi's allegedly more "hawkish" tone. There is a huge difference between removing emergency measures and beginning a full-fledged tightening cycle. Labor market slack is still considerably higher in the euro area than was the case in 2008. Outside of Germany, the level of unemployment and underemployment in the euro area is about seven points higher than it was before the Great Recession (Chart 34). Chart 33Inflation In The 1960s Took Off ##br##Once The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% Chart 34Euro Area: Labor Market Slack##br## Is Still High Outside Of Germany At this point, the market is pricing in too much tightening from the ECB. Our months-to-hike measure has plummeted from a high of 65 months in July 2016 to 25 months at present (Chart 35). Investors now expect real yields in the U.S. to be only 16 basis points higher than in the euro area in five years' time.4 This is below the 76 basis-point gap in the equilibrium rate between the two regions that Holston, Laubach, and Williams estimate (Chart 36). Chart 35ECB: Markets Are Pricing In Too Much Tighteninh Chart 36The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area As for Japan, while the unemployment rate has fallen to a 22-year low of 2.8%, this understates the true amount of slack in the economy. Output-per-hour in Japan remains 35% below U.S. levels. A key reason for this is that many Japanese companies continue to pad their payrolls with excess labor. This is particularly true in the service sector, which remains largely insulated from foreign competition. In any case, with both actual inflation and inflation expectations in Japan nowhere close to the BoJ's target, this is hardly the time to be worried about an overheated economy. And even if the Japanese authorities were inclined to slow growth, it would be fiscal policy rather than monetary policy that they would tighten first. After all, they have been keen to raise the sales tax for several years now. The Bank Of England's Dilemma Gilts are a tougher call. The equilibrium rate is higher in the U.K. than in most other developed economies. Inflation has risen, although that has largely been a function of a weaker currency. Fiscal policy is turning more accommodative, which, all things equal, would warrant a more bearish view on gilts. The big wildcard is Brexit. Chart 37 shows that the U.K. is the only major country where growth has faltered this year. Worries over Britain's future relationship with the EU have likely contributed to the slowdown. Ongoing Brexit angst will keep the Bank of England on hold, justifying a neutral weighting on gilts. Stay Short Duration ... For Now In summary, investors should keep global duration risk below benchmark levels over the next 12 months. Regionally, we recommend underweighting U.S. Treasurys, overweighting Japan, and maintaining a neutral position towards euro area and U.K. government bonds. Reflecting these recommendations, we are closing our short Japanese, German and Swiss 10-year bond trade for a gain of 5.3% and replacing it with a short 30-year U.S. Treasury bond position. As global growth begins to slow in the second half of next year, global bonds will rally. However, as we discussed at length in our Q2 Strategy Outlook, the rally will simply represent a countertrend move in what will turn out to be a structural bear market.5 The 2020s, in short, could end up looking a lot like the 1970s. Spread Product: Still A Bit Of Juice Left While we prefer equities to high-yield credit on a risk-adjusted basis over the coming months, we would still overweight spread product within a global asset allocation framework. The option-adjusted spread of the U.S. high-yield index offers 200 basis points above the Treasury curve after adjusting for expected defaults, roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data (Chart 38). Corporate defaults are likely to trend lower over the next 12 months, spurred by stronger growth and a rebound in oil prices. Chart 37U.K. Is Lagging Its Peers Chart 38Default-Adjusted Junk Spreads Are At Historical Average As with all our other views, the picture is likely to change sharply in the second half of next year. At that point, corporate spreads will widen, warranting a much more defensive stance. Currencies And Commodities The Dollar Bull: Down But Not Out Our long-standing dollar bullish view has come under fire over the past few months. The Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar index has fallen 4.6% since December. Momentum in currency markets can be a powerful force, and so we would not be surprised if the dollar remains under pressure over the coming weeks. However, over a 12-month horizon, the greenback will strengthen, as the Fed raises rates more quickly than expected while most other central banks stand pat. When all is said and done, the broad-trade weighted dollar is likely to peak next summer at a level roughly 10% higher than where it is today. That would still leave it substantially below prior peaks in 1985 and 2000 (Chart 39). The U.S. trade deficit has fallen from a peak of nearly 6% of GDP in 2005 to 3% of GDP at present (Chart 40). Rising shale production has reduced the demand for oil imports. A smaller trade deficit diminishes the need to attract foreign capital with a cheaper currency. Chart 39The Dollar Is Below Past Peaks Chart 40The U.S. Trade Deficit Has Halved Since 2005 Sentiment and speculative positioning towards the dollar have swung from extremely bullish at the start of the year to being more neutral today (Chart 41). In contrast, long euro speculative positions and bullish sentiment have reached the highest levels in three years. Our tactical short euro/long dollar trade was stopped out this week for a loss of 1.6%. However, we continue to expect EUR/USD to fall back towards parity by the end of the year. We also expect the pound to weaken against the dollar, but appreciate slightly against the euro. Now that the Bank of Japan is keeping the 10-year JGB yield pinned to zero, the outlook for the yen will be largely determined by what happens to yields abroad. If we are correct that Treasury yields - and to a lesser extent yields in Europe - rise, the yen will suffer. Commodity Currencies Should Fare Well Higher commodity prices should benefit currencies such as the Canadian and Aussie dollars and the Norwegian krone. Our energy strategists remain convinced that crude prices are heading higher. They expect global production to increase by only 0.7 MMB/d in 2017, compared to 1.5 MMB/d growth in consumption. While shale output continues to rise, this is largely being offset by falling production from conventional oil fields. Consequently, oil inventories should fall in the remainder of this year. If history is any guide, this will lead to a rebound in oil prices (Chart 42). Chart 41USD: Sentiment And Positioning ##br##Are Not Lopsided Anymore Chart 42Falling Oil Inventories Should Lead ##br##To Higher Crude Prices The outlook for industrial metals is not as upbeat as for oil, but metal prices should nevertheless rebound over the coming months. We suspect that much of the recent weakness in metal prices can be attributed to the regulatory crackdown on shadow banking activity in China. Many Chinese traders had used commodities as collateral for loans. As their loans were called in, they had no choice but to liquidate their positions. Today, speculative positioning in the commodity pits has returned to more normal levels (Chart 43). This reduces the risk of a further downdraft in commodity prices. BCA's China strategists expect the Chinese authorities to relax some of their tightening measures. This is already being seen in a decline in interbank lending rates and corporate bond yields (Chart 44). Chart 43Commodities: Long Speculative Positions Returning ##br##To More Normal Levels Chart 44China: Some Relief##br## After Recent Tightening Action? One key reason why the authorities have been able to let interest rates come down is because capital outflows have abated. Compared to late 2015, economic growth is stronger and deflationary pressures have receded. The trade-weighted RMB has also fallen by 7.5% since then, giving the economy a competitive boost. As such, the seeming can't-lose bet on further yuan weakness has disappeared. We still expect the RMB to depreciate against the dollar over the next 12 months, but to strengthen against most other currencies, including the euro and the yen. If the yuan remains resilient, this will limit the downside risk for other EM currencies. Nevertheless, at this point, much of the good news benefiting EM currencies has been priced in. Across the EM universe, in addition to the Chinese yuan, we like the Mexican peso, Taiwan dollar, Indian rupee, Russian ruble, Polish zloty, and Czech koruna. Lastly, a few words on the most timeless of all currencies: gold. We expect bullion to struggle over the next 12 months on the back of a stronger dollar and rising bond yields. However, once the Fed starts cutting rates in 2019 and stagflationary forces begin to gather steam in the early 2020s, gold will finally have its day in the sun. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, please see Box 4.1: Financial Linkages and Spillovers in "Spillovers and Cycles in the Global Economy," IMF World Economic Outlook, (April 2007). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Stock Market Timing Model," dated May 5, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; Global Investment Strategy - Strategy Outlook, "First Quarter 2017 From Reflation To Stagflation, (Section: Supply Matters), First Quarter 2017 From Reflation To Stagflation, (Section: Supply Matters)," dated January 6, 2017; and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 U.S. minus euro area 5-year/5-year forward real bond yields. Real bonds yields are calculated as a difference between nominal yields and the CPI swap rate. Euro area yields refer to a GDP-weighted average of Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Spain. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Trade 1: An unwinding of the Trump reflation trade... has worked exactly as expected. Take profits and switch into Trade 5. Trade 2: Short pound/euro at €1.18 and simultaneously buy call options at €1.30... is up 4%. Take profits and add to long euro/dollar. Trade 3: Underweight French OATS... has worked well both in a European bond portfolio and in a global bond portfolio. Stick with this trade. Trade 4: Long euro/yuan... is up 6%. Stick with this trade. Trade 5 (New): Underweight emerging market equities. European equity investors should underweight Poland. Feature At the mid-point of the year, we are devoting this report to appraise our top investment ideas for 2017 - as recommended in our December 22 report Five Pressing Questions (And Four Trades) For 2017. Half-time is a good moment to review the thoughts we had at the start of 2017, establish how the ideas have performed in the first half, and assess whether to stick with them or make some changes in the second half. Chart of the WeekFor EM Equities, Excessive Groupthink Is Hitting Its Natural Limit Trade 1: An Unwinding Of The Trump Reflation Trade Chart I-2The Trump Reflation Trade Has Unwound Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "Can a modern day King Canute1 single-handedly turn the tide of global deflation - the combined structural forces of over-indebtedness, demographics, technology, and globalization? This publication believes that the tide has not turned... Rationality and analysis will conclude that Trumponomics is not the structural game changer that the market seems to believe right now." How has the trade performed in the first half? Exactly as scripted, the Trump reflation trade - in its various guises - has unwound. Since our original report, the trade-weighted dollar is down 5%; the global bond yield is down 15bps (the 10-year T-bond yield is down 40bps); and banks have underperformed the market by 5% (Chart I-2). Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: Never forget that the financial markets are a complex ecosystem in which long-term investors jostle with short-term traders. The equilibrium of this ecosystem relies on rationality and analysis ultimately checking emotion and impulse. In February, our prescient warning in The Contrarian Case For Bonds was that as emotional and impulsive short-term traders had been left unchecked to drive markets, excessive groupthink was hitting its natural technical limit. The 6-month sell-off in bonds had reached a point of instability. And sure enough, the trend broke (Chart I-3). Chart I-3For Bonds, Excessive Groupthink Hit Its Natural Limit In February At such tipping points of excessive groupthink, a good benchmark is that the preceding trend will reverse by one third. On this basis, a large part of the gains in the Trump trade unwind have now been made. Take profits and switch into new trade 5. Trade 2: Short Pound/Euro At €1.18 And Simultaneously Buy Call Options At €1.30 Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "2017 will be an especially unpredictable year for U.K. politics and economics because Brexit creates a larger number of moving parts, complex interactions and feedback loops, both negative and positive... The pound is unlikely to stay near today's €1.18. Expect a sharp move one way or the other." How has the trade performed in the first half? For U.K. politics, "especially unpredictable" could be the understatement of the year! An unpredicted general election generated an even more unpredicted result. With pound/euro now below €1.13, the directional position is up 5% in gross terms, and up around 4% in net terms allowing for the cost of the call options (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Pound / Euro Has Underperformed In 2017 Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: In a hung parliament, the minority Conservative government does not have the parliamentary maths to legislate for a hard Brexit in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Significantly, the so-called 'Salisbury Convention' - in which the House of Lords does not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto - does not necessarily apply in a hung parliament. This is because, by definition, the minority Conservative government's manifesto did not secure a majority in the House of Commons. With the hard Brexit tail-risk diminished, our current preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third, based on the evolution of interest rate expectations explained below. Hence, take profits in short pound/euro and add to long euro/dollar. Trade 3: Underweight French OATS Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "2016 was the year when QE peaked... The credibility of the ECB to suppress long-term bond yields would then be severely damaged. And the greatest danger would be to those euro area bond yields closest to zero." How has the trade performed in the first half? French OATS have substantially underperformed both U.K. gilts (Chart I-5) and U.S. T-bonds (Chart I-6). So it has been correct to underweight French government bonds both in a European bond portfolio and in a global bond portfolio. Chart I-5French OATs Have Underperformed In##br## A European Bond Portfolio... Chart I-6...And A Global ##br##Bond Portfolio Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: Central banks' professed commitment to data-dependency means that their words - and ultimately actions - must acknowledge the hard data. No ifs, buts or maybes. Based on the latest PMIs which capture current economic sentiment, and on 6-month credit impulses, which lead activity, euro area hard data will continue to be among the best among the major economies. Combined with the supply shortages the ECB is now facing in buying German bunds, expect the ECB's words to continue becoming more hawkish. The recent relatively smooth winding down of three failing banks - Spain's Banco Popolare and Italy's Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca - will also hearten the ECB that the strategy for resolving its undercapitalised banks does not pose a systemic risk to the economy or markets. Hence, expect euro area interest rate expectations to continue converging with other developed economies. And stick with the underweight French OATS (or German Bunds) trade, especially in a global bond portfolio. Chart I-7Euro / Yuan Is Up 6% Trade 4: Long Euro/Yuan Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "The debt super cycle is over when the cost of malinvestment and misallocation of capital outweighs the benefit of good credit creation... China appears to be approaching this point. One manifestation would be continued weakness in its currency against the major developed market crosses." How has the trade performed in the first half? Euro/yuan is up 6% (Chart I-7). Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: The thoughts we expressed at the start of 2017 are still entirely valid and supported by the argument for trade 5 below. Stick with long euro/yuan. Trade 5 (New): Underweight Emerging Market Equities Just as we presciently warned of excessive negative groupthink towards bonds in February, we are now seeing similarly excessive positive groupthink towards EM equities hitting its natural technical limit. This is a strong warning that the first half 15% rally risks reversing, or fizzling, in the second half (Chart of the Week). Chart I-8If EM Underperforms DM, Poland ##br##Underperforms Europe For the detailed fundamental analysis, I refer you to the latest reports penned by my colleague, BCA's Chief Emerging Markets Strategist, Arthur Budaghyan. But in summary, Arthur says: "China's liquidity conditions have tightened, warranting a meaningful slowdown in money/credit and economic growth... the outlook for EM risk assets is extremely poor... and we continue to recommend an underweight allocation towards EM within global portfolios across stocks, credit and currencies."2 For European equity investors, this means underweighting Poland, whose relative performance tracks EM versus DM equities (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In fact, the story of King Canute has been misinterpreted. Rather than show that he could turn the tide, he wanted to show the opposite: that he was powerless against the tide. 2 Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution" published on June 14, 2017 and available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* As shown on page 1, this week's trade is to go short emerging markets with a corresponding long in developed markets. In this case, the trade duration is up to 6 months with a profit target and stop-loss of 3%. Amongst our other open trades, long FTSE100 / short IBEX35 is approaching its 4% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. The RPI borrows from Paul Samuelson's "revealed preference" theory of consumer behavior to market behavior. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and the monetary policy backdrop. A trading rule for the stock/bond allocation based on the RPI outperforms traditional technical, monetary, and valuation indicators. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive equity market momentum lines up with positive signals from policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it is best used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. In 1938, economist Paul Samuelson published a paper entitled, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," in which he outlined an alternative to the well-known economic principle, utility theory. He dubbed his work "revealed preference theory."1 His goal was to redefine utility - a measure of consumer satisfaction with a good or service - by observing behavior. He posited that when consumers reveal their preferences by buying one item rather than another, they reveal the way in which they maximize happiness or satisfaction. For instance, one can measure preferences via experiments in which a subject is given $200 and the choice between two brands of shoes at different prices. Repeating the exercise at different levels of income and relative prices generates "preference axioms." Samuelson's theory has many more layers of complexity, but this Special Report focuses on modelling investors' preferences through observed behavior. Borrowing from Samuelson's reasoning, we developed a methodology to identify investors' axioms of preference for equities and bonds at different levels of incomes and prices. Then we compared investors' real actions with those anticipated by our methodology. This allowed us to generalize our findings and analyze the effects on a portfolio of equities and bonds. The main finding of our statistical exercise is that asset allocators can profit from understanding how short-term moves are linked to the market's revealed preferences at different times during the economic cycle. We then use the results to construct an indicator and a trading rule that not only outperforms a buy-and-hold strategy by a wide margin, it outperforms other traditional trading rules as well. Building A Revealed Preference Model Our primary objective in constructing a revealed preference indicator (RPI) is to understand: (1) how market preferences shape the behavior of investors; and (2) how they ultimately affect future returns. To do so, we broke down our analysis into three key areas: Part I identifies market preferences for different levels of income and price in the economy. Part II defines a general investment strategy that utilizes historic preferences and short-term market movements as a market timing tool. Part III optimizes the RPI and compares its historical track record with a buy-and-hold asset allocation and trading rules based on other indicators. Part I - Developing The Framework The first step in building the RPI is to establish the proper control variables. We limited our basket of investable "goods" to U.S. equities and 10-year Treasurys. We also need a variable that is analogous to the income measure that Samuelson used in his study. For the choice facing investors who are deciding between buying two financial assets, we believe that a measure of market "liquidity" is more appropriate than income. By this we do not mean the ease by which financial assets can be bought and sold. Rather, it is "funding liquidity", or how easily it is to borrow to invest. BCA often uses the four phases of the Fed cycle, as interest rates fluctuate around the equilibrium level, as a measure of funding liquidity (Chart II-1):2 Chart II-1Fed Funds Rate As A Proxy For Income Phase I = Policy is accommodative but the fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed is still tightening. Phase III = Policy is tight but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easy and the Fed is cutting rates. The rationale for using the fed funds-rate cycle as a proxy for income is that, when interest rates are below equilibrium, monetary conditions are accommodative. Leverage is easy to obtain because there is plenty of liquidity (income) to fund investments. When conditions are tight, funding liquidity is relatively scarce. To measure relative prices, we first divided the S&P 500 price index by its 12-month moving average and second, we took the inverse of the 10-year Treasury yield divided by 12-month moving average.3 We then used the ratio of these two deviations-from-trend to construct a relative price measure (Chart II-2). This ratio provides a single measure of how expensive stocks and bonds are, not only to each other, but to their own history as well. We then grouped the relative price data into four sets of percentiles, or buckets, shown in Table II-1. Stocks are expensive and bonds cheap at the top of the table, while the reverse is true at the bottom. Chart II-2Constructing A Single Price Measure For Equities And Bonds Table II-1Distribution Of Relative Price Table II-2A presents the average historical monthly percent change in stock prices for each combination of the four relative price and liquidity buckets over the entire dataset. In the fourth phase of the Fed cycle (when monetary conditions are easy and the Fed is still cutting interest rates), and when relative prices are in the first bucket (i.e. stocks are expensive), the average stock price increase during the month was slightly above 1% percent. Table II-2B provides the same breakdown for the average change in bond yields (shown in basis points, not returns). Tables II-2A and II-2B are recalculated at each point in time - meaning that we used an expanding sample to calculate the price buckets, and updated the results for the ensuing price or yield movements as new data are added. That way, we completely avoid the advantage of hindsight. To simplify our methodology, we coded the results to end up with the stock and bond returns for the 16 different combinations of Fed and relative price buckets. Table II-3 uses the results from Tables II-2A and II-2B in the last period of history as an example. The "Liquidity" and "Price" columns indicate the bucket (e.g. price in bucket 1 and liquidity in bucket 1). The "Stocks" and "Bonds" columns are coded as "1" if the asset appreciated during the month given the indicated liquidity/price bucket, and a "0" if it depreciated that month. Table II-2AEquity Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Table II-2BTreasury Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Chart II-3Revealing What Investors Prefer Part II - Habits Create Expectations It is important to keep in mind that the objective of our revealed preference model is not to use the revealed market preferences as forecasts but rather to examine what happens when investors decide to follow or ignore them. Our hypothesis in building this model is that, when investors go against their historical preferences, the result should be interpreted as short-term noise. It is only when preferences and (subsequent) short-term market moves are aligned that we should heed the signal and invest accordingly. Table II-3 can be thought of as the market's revealed preference. Again, keep in mind that we allowed revealed preferences to change over time by recalculating it under our stretching-sample approach. The following steps detail how we used investor preferences to create a trading rule that verifies our hypothesis empirically: Step 1 - Expected vs. Actual: The first step is to examine how actual equity prices and bond yields behaved relative to their expected trajectory. We created two variables - one for equities and one for bonds. If revealed preference last month (t-1) suggested that the asset's return should be positive in the subsequent month (t), and it indeed turned out to be positive in period t, then we coded month t as "1." If both the revealed preference and the actual outcome were negative, we coded it as "-1." If they did not match, the code is "0" (in other words, the market did not follow the typical historical revealed preference). Thus we have two time series, one for bonds and one for stocks, which are made up of 1s, -1s and zeros. Step 2 - Bullish, Bearish, and Neutral: We combined the coded series for stocks and bonds to encompass the nine possible outcomes in our model (i.e. both bonds and stocks can have a value in any month of 1, 0 or -1, providing 9 different combinations). Table II-4 presents the nine outcomes along with the asset allocation that would have maximized investor returns based on our historical analysis. For example, investors were paid to be overweight equities when equities and bonds have a code of "1" and "-1," respectively (top row in Table II-4). In other words, stocks tended to outperform bonds when revealed preferences from the month before predicted rising stock prices and rising bond yields, and these predictions were confirmed. Table II-4Understanding The Signals From Preferences If revealed preference is not confirmed for both bonds and stocks, then it is best for investors to stand aside with a benchmark allocation. Step 3 - "If It Don't Make Dollars, It Don't Make Sense": To test whether our theory would add strategic value, we computed a trading rule to see how well it performed against a benchmark portfolio of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. The trading rule was computed as follows: when the revealed preference for equities is positive (at time t-1) and this signal is confirmed in t, then in t+1 we allocate 100% to the S&P 500 and 0% to Treasurys. When the revealed equity preference signal is correctly bearish, we removed all exposure to equities and allocated 100% to Treasurys. When the signal was neutral, we kept a benchmark allocation of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. Chart II-3 shows that this trading rule outperforms the benchmark, confirming our initial hypothesis - one should fade the short-term movements when investors go against their preferences, and only follow the signals when those movements align with historical preferences. History shows that investors tend to underperform in terms of the stock/bond allocation when they deviate from their revealed preference. Chart II-3Correctly Gauging How Investors Behave Pays Off Part III - Validating The Results One drawback is that this trading rule would require frequent portfolio allocation changes every month, as shown in Chart II-4. As such, we constructed a smoothed version by imposing the rule that asset allocation is unchanged unless the model provides a new signal for two months in a row (Chart II-5).4 These restrictions not only dramatically reduced the frequency of the asset allocation adjustments, but it also augmented historical cumulative excess returns (Chart II-6). Chart II-4Revealed Preference Indicator Is Inherently Volatile Chart II-5Removing Some Of The Noise Any new indicator of course must be able to outperform a buy-and-hold strategy to be useful but it is also interesting to see how its performance ranks compared to a set of random portfolios. This way, we can identify if the indicator truly provides additional information. Random portfolios are generated using a monthly allocations of 100% or 0% to equities, with the remainder in Treasurys. Chart II-7 shows the performance of the smoothed indicator versus a set of 1,000 randomly generated portfolios. Chart II-6Once Smoothed, The RPI Truly Shines Chart II-7The RPI Adds A Significant Amount Of Information We compared the indicator's trading rule to simple moving averages or BCA's other indicators. We also wanted to ensure that the RPI adds value beyond investing based strictly on the four phases of the liquidity cycle or based on relative value alone. We therefore compared the track record of the RPI trading rule to rules that are based on: (1) the deviation of the S&P 500 from its 12-month moving trend; (2) BCA's monetary conditions indicator; (3) BCA's valuation indicator; (4) BCA's technical indicator; (5) the four phases of the Fed cycle; and (6) the relative price index. Charts II-8A and II-8B highlights that RPI indeed impressively dominates the other trading rules. The one exception is that, during the Great Recession, the model's performance fell to roughly match the performance of a S&P 500 technical trading rule. Chart II-8AThe RPI Outperforms The Sum Of Its Parts... Chart II-8B...As Well As Other Indicators Part IV - Conclusions The RPI is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. Quite simply, it 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. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it will best be used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. The indicator's current reading for stocks versus bonds, at benchmark, is more conservative than our official recommendation. The benchmark reading reflects the fact that equities are overvalued and that investors have deviated from their preferences in their past two quarters. David Boucher Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist 1 For more information, please see P. A. Samuelson, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," Economica 5:17 (1938), pp. 61-71. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 We tested a few other measures, most notably the stock-to-bond total return ratio (measured by comparing each asset's total returns), but the chosen measures provided the best and most robust results. 4 We conducted a statistical exercise to validate and optimize the allocations in Table 4 to provide a smoother performance.

Highlights A whiff of global deflation shook-up financial markets in June, driven by melting oil prices and a startling May U.S. CPI report. Nonetheless, we have not changed our recommended asset allocation. Bond markets have over-discounted the impact of the commodity price weakness, especially with regard to Fed policy and long-term inflation expectations in the major countries. We do not see the selling pressure in the commodity pits as a harbinger of slower global growth. Above-trend growth in the U.S. is likely in the second half of the year, along with continuing robust activity at the global level. Oil prices should rebound, based on our view that consumption will outstrip production in the second half of the year; the surprise will be how strong oil prices are in the coming months. The FOMC appears more determined than in the past to stick with the current policy normalization timetable. Unemployment will edge further below the full-employment level if the FOMC does not slow the pace of job creation. We believe that the labor market is tight enough to gradually push up inflation. Together with a rebound in the commodity pits, this means that the recent bond rally will reverse. Soft U.S. CPI readings are a challenge to our view. The Fed will delay the next rate hike into next year if core inflation does not move up in the next few months. The equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the main indicators that have provided leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. The profit backdrop remains constructive. Our base case is that stocks beat bonds and cash for the remainder of 2017. We expect to trim exposure to equities next year, but the evolution of a number of indicators will influence the timing. The same is true for corporate bonds. The dollar's bull phase has one more upleg left. Japanese, European and U.K. equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Feature A whiff of global deflation shook-up financial markets in June, driven by melting oil prices and a startling May U.S. CPI report. Investors quickly concluded that the Fed will have to proceed even more slowly in terms of its policy normalization plan which, in turn, sent the dollar and global bond yields sharply lower. Equity indexes held up because of the dollar and bond yield "relief valves". Stocks are also benefiting from the continuing rebound in corporate earnings growth in the major economies. Nonetheless, the commodity pullback and soft U.S. inflation data are a challenge to our reflation theme, which includes a final upleg in the U.S. dollar and a negative view on bond prices. We believe that markets have over-discounted the impact of the commodity price weakness, especially with regard to Fed policy and long-term inflation expectations in the major countries. Above-trend growth in the U.S. is likely in the second half of the year, along with continuing robust activity at the global level. We also think that the FOMC is more determined than in the past to stick with the current policy normalization timetable. The bottom line is that we are not changing our recommended asset allocation based on June's market action. We remain overweight stocks and corporate bonds relative to government bonds and cash. We are also short duration and long the dollar. A key risk to our asset allocation relates to our contrarily bullish view on oil prices. Oil Drove The Bond Rally... The decline in long-term bond yields since March reflected in large part a drop in inflation expectations (Chart I-1). BCA's fixed-income strategists point out that the slump in long-term inflation expectations has been widespread across the major countries, irrespective of whether actual inflation is trending up or down.1 Core inflation has moved lower in the U.S., Japan, Canada and (slightly) in the Eurozone, but has increased in Australia and the U.K. In terms of diffusion indexes, which often lead core inflation, they are falling in the U.S., Japan and Canada, but are rising in the U.K., the Eurozone and Australia (Chart I-2). Chart I-1 Inflation Expectations Drive Bond Rally Chart I-2Diverging Inflation Trends Given all these diverging signals within the national inflation data, it is odd that there has been such a uniform decline in inflation expectations across the major bond markets. That leads us to look to the commodity price decline as the main driver of the downshift in expectations. Short-term moves in oil prices should not affect long-term inflation expectations, but in practice the correlation has been strong since the plunge in oil prices beginning in 2014. Weaker oil and other commodity prices have also fed investor concerns that global growth is waning. We see little evidence of any slowdown in global growth, although some leading indicators have softened. Key monthly data such as industrial production, retail sales and capital goods orders reveal an acceleration in growth for the advanced economies as a group (Chart I-3). There has also been a general upgrading of the consensus growth forecast for the major countries and for the world in both 2017 and 2018 (Chart I-4). This is unlike previous years, when growth forecasts started the year high, only to be slashed as the year progressed. Chart I-3No Slowdown In Advanced Economies Chart I-4Growth Expectations Revised Up ...But Watch Out For A Reversal The implication is that we do not see the selling pressure in the commodity pits as a harbinger of slower global growth. Nonetheless, the mini oil meltdown in June went against our medium-term bullish view. In a recent report,2 our Energy Sector Strategy team noted that investors are confused about conflicting supply signals in oil markets. Traders do not yet see the physical shortage that the IEA/EIA/OPEC and BCA's top-down supply & demand analyses argue will prevail in the coming months. Chart I-5Falling Inventories To Drive Oil Rebound The investment community is being overly pessimistic in our view. The coalition led by the Saudi Arabia and Russia will have removed 1.4 MMB/d of production on average from the market between January 2017 and end-March 2018, versus peak production in November of last year. This will be diluted somewhat by the Libyan and U.S. production gains, but the increased production will not be sufficient to counter the OPEC/Russia cuts entirely. We expect global production to increase by only 0.7 MMB/d in 2017, an estimate that includes rapid increases in U.S. shale output. Meanwhile, we expect consumption to grow by 1.5 MMB/d, implying that oil inventories will fall over the remainder of this year. If history is any guide, this will lead to a rebound in oil prices (Chart I-5). It will be quite a shock to markets if crude reaches $60/bbl by December as we expect. As for base metals, it appears that the correction is largely related to reduced speculative demand rather than weak global and/or Chinese demand. It is true that the Chinese economy has slipped a notch according to some measures, such as housing starts and M2 growth. Nonetheless, the government remains cognizant of the risks of tightening policy too aggressively, especially with the National Party Congress slated for this autumn. The PBoC injected 250 billion yuan into the financial system in June and fiscal policy has been eased. Real-time measures of industrial activity such as railway freight traffic, excavator sales, and electricity production remain upbeat. Retail sales continue to expand at a healthy clip. Export growth is accelerating thanks to a weaker currency and stronger global activity. Given that many investors remain concerned about a hard landing in China, the bar for positive surprises is comfortably low. If China can clear this bar, as we expect it will, it will be good news for the commodity currencies and other commodity plays. A rebound in base metal and, especially, oil prices would boost global inflation expectations and bond yields, especially since inflation expectations have fallen too far relative to underlying non-energy inflation pressures. This forecast also applies to the U.S. bond market, although there was more to the soft May CPI report than oil prices. Is The Fed's Inflation Target Credible? Investors are questioning whether the Fed has the ability to reach its inflation goals. Is it possible that the U.S. is following Japan's roadmap where even an over-heated labor market is insufficient to generate any meaningful inflation? We argued above that the moderation in inflation expectations in the major markets was mostly related to the decline in commodity prices. However, in the U.S., it also reflected a fairly widespread pullback in CPI inflation this year. This is contrary to Fed Chair Yellen's assertion that most of it reflects special factors such as wireless telecommunications prices. The deceleration in inflation began around the start of the year. The three-month rate of change of the headline index fell by more than five percentage points between January and May, of which energy accounts for 3.3 percentage points. The deceleration in the core rate was a less severe, but still substantial at 2.8 percentage points. Table I-1 presents the components of the CPI that made the largest contribution to the deceleration in core inflation. Motor vehicles, owners' equivalent rent, apparel, recreation, wireless telecom and medical care services accounted for 1.2 percentage points as a group. However, many other sectors contributed in a small way to the overall deceleration of core inflation in the first five months of the year. Table I-1Key Drivers Of U.S. Core Inflation Deceleration In 2017 Some special factors were at play. The moderation in rent inflation likely reflects the bottoming of the vacancy rate. Discounting in the auto sector is not a surprise given weak sales. Wireless prices can be viewed as a special case as well. Nonetheless, the breadth and suddenness of the deceleration in core inflation across such diverse sectors, some unrelated to labor markets, commodity prices, the dollar or on-line shopping, is worrying. The disinflation this year in the Fed's preferred measure, the PCE price index, is not as extended but the data are published almost a month behind the CPI data. A diffusion index made up of the components of the PCE index is still in positive territory, unlike the CPI's diffusion index (Chart I-6). Nonetheless, the CPI data suggest that core PCE inflation will edge lower when the May data are released at the end of June. There has also been a moderation in some of the wage inflation data, such as average hourly earnings (Chart I-7). The slowdown has been fairly widespread across manufacturing and services. However, the soft patch already appears to be over; 3-month rates of change have firmed almost across the board (retail is a major exception). There is no slowdown evident at all in the better-constructed Employment Cost Index (ECI) as of the first quarter (Chart I-8). The ECI is adjusted to avoid compositional effects that can distort the aggregate index. The related diffusion indexes also remain constructive. Chart I-6PCE Inflation Rate To Follow CPI Lower Chart I-7AHE SoftPatch Appears Over... Chart I-8...And The ECI Marches Higher We conclude from these and other wage measures that the Phillips curve is still operating in the U.S. Admittedly, the curve appears to be quite flat, which means it is difficult to generate inflation even with a tight labor market. Nonetheless, the relationship between the ECI and various measures of labor market tightness shown in Chart I-8 does not appear to have broken down. The percentage of U.S. states with unemployment below the Fed's estimate of full employment jumped to 70% in May. Anything over 60% in the past has been associated with wage pressure (Chart I-9). The bottom line is that, while we are concerned about the breadth of the soft patch in the consumer price data, we are in agreement with the Fed hawks that the labor market is tight enough to gradually push up inflation. We are willing at this point to chalk up the recent drop in core inflation partly to randomness in the data, and partly to lagged effects of the slowdown in real GDP growth in the first half of 2016 (Chart I-10). Admittedly, however, the U.S. inflation reports in the coming months are a key risk to our reflation-related asset allocation. Chart I-9More Than 70% Of U.S. States Have Excess Labor Demand Chart I-10Financial Conditions Point To Faster Growth And Inflation What Will The Fed Do? The CPI data have certainly rattled some members of the FOMC. Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Kaplan and Kashkari, for example, believe that the Fed needs to be patient to ensure that the inflation pullback is temporary. However, the June FOMC Statement and Yellen's press conference suggested that the consensus is determined to stick with the current tightening timetable in terms of rate hikes and balance sheet adjustment. She stressed that the FOMC makes policy for the "medium term," and should not over-react to short-term wiggles in the data. Vice President Dudley echoed this view in recent comments he made to the press. The Fed has been quick to back away from planned rate hikes at the first hint of trouble in recent years. However, it appears that the reaction function has changed, now that the labor market is at full employment. This is especially the case because financial conditions have eased further, despite the June rate hike. Unemployment will edge further below the full-employment level if the FOMC does not slow the pace of job creation. Policymakers know that the Fed has had little success in the past when it tried to nudge unemployment higher in order to relieve budding inflation pressure; these attempts almost always ended in recession. Dudley added that "...pausing policy now could raise the risk of inflation surging and hurting the economy." Other FOMC members are worried that financial stability risk will build if the low-rate environment extends much further. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to stick with the game-plan for now. The FOMC will begin shrinking the balance sheet in September, but will wait until December for the next rate hike. That said, a stubbornly low inflation rate in the coming months would likely see the FOMC postpone the next rate increase into next year. Where Next For Bonds? We see three possible scenarios for the bond market: Reflation Returns: Weak recent inflation readings are nothing more than a lagged response to last year's deceleration in economic growth. U.S. growth accelerates in the second half, unemployment falls further and both wage growth and inflation pick up. Oil inventories begin to contract and prices head higher. The FOMC is vindicated in its inflation view and proceeds with the current rate hike and balance sheet adjustment agenda. Investors receive a "wake up call" from the Fed, bond prices get hit and recent curve-flattening trend reverses. Fed Capitulates: The U.S. labor market continues to tighten, but core PCE inflation is still close to 1½% by the September FOMC meeting. We would expect the Fed to lower its forecasted rate hike path, signaling that no further rate hikes are likely in 2017. Long-maturity real yields would fall in this scenario, although long-term inflation expectations could rise to the extent that the Fed's more dovish tilt will weaken the dollar and generate more inflation in the medium term. Nominal yields may not end up moving much in this scenario. A Policy Mistake: If core inflation remains low between now and the September FOMC meeting and the Fed continues to write-off low inflation as transitory, signaling its intention to stick to its current projected rate hike path, then the market would begin to discount a "policy mistake" scenario. The yield curve would flatten and long-maturity nominal yields would fall, led by tighter TIPS breakevens. In terms of probabilities, we would characterize Scenario 1 as our base case, Scenario 2 as unlikely and Scenario 3 as a tail risk. We remain short-duration in anticipation of a rebound in long-term inflation expectations and higher yields. A bond selloff, however, should not present a major headwind for stocks as long as the earnings backdrop remains constructive. Will The Real Profit Margin Please Stand Up For some time we have been highlighting the importance of the mini-cycle in U.S. earnings growth; the corporate sector is in a catch-up phase following last year's profit recession, a trend that extends beyond the energy patch. EPS growth has surged this year on the back of somewhat stronger sales and rising S&P 500 margins. The National Accounts (NIPA) data, however, paint a different picture. Earnings growth for the entire corporate sector fell sharply in the first quarter and margins continued to slide. If the NIPA data are telling the true story, then the equity market is in big trouble because it suggests that the earnings outlook is much weaker than what is discounted in stock prices. There are many definitional differences that make it difficult to reconcile the NIPA and S&P data.3 Nonetheless, we can make some general observations. Chart I-11 presents the 4-quarter growth rate of NIPA profits4 and a proxy for aggregate S&P earnings. For the latter, we multiplied earnings-per-share by the divisor to obtain an estimate of the level of aggregate earnings in dollar terms (i.e. not on a per-share basis). The bottom panel of Chart I-11 compares the level of profits, each indexed to be 100 in 2011 Q1. The charts highlight that, while there have been marked differences in annual growth rates between the two measures in some years, the levels ended up being close to the same point in the first quarter of 2017. The dip in NIPA profit growth in the first quarter was not reflected in the S&P measure. It appears that this is partly due to different profiles for profit growth in the energy and financials sectors. That said, broadly speaking, it does not appear that the difference in margins is due to a significant divergence in aggregate profits. It turns out that most of the margin divergence is related to the denominator of the calculation (Chart I-12). The NIPA denominator is corporate sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a value-added concept that is quite different from sales. It is not clear why, but GDP has grown much faster than sales since the end of 2014. It appears to us that the S&P data are telling the correct story at the moment. After all, sales are straight forward to measure, while value added is complicated to construct. The fact that sales are growing slowly is not a bullish point for stocks. Nonetheless, it does not appear that financial engineering has distorted bottom-up company data to such an extent that the S&P data are signaling strong profit growth when the reality is the opposite. We expect the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the profit backdrop remains positive for stocks for now. The same is true in the Eurozone and Japan, where margins are also rising. It is worrying that a large part of this year's U.S. equity market advance has been concentrated in a small number of stocks, but that belies the breadth of the profit recovery (Chart I-13). The proportion of S&P industry groups with rising earnings estimates is above 75%. Such widespread participation is consistent with ongoing upward revisions to 12-month forward earnings estimates. Chart I-11S&P And NIPA Profit Comparison Chart I-12Denominator Explains S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence Chart I-13Positive Earnings Revisions Are Broadly Based The solid earnings backdrop is the main reason we remain overweight stocks versus bonds and cash. Of course, given poor valuation, we must be extra vigilant in watching for warning signs of a bear market. Valuation has never been good leading indicator for bear markets, but it does provide information on the risks. Monitoring The Bear Market Barometer BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, highlighted the best "equity bear market" indicators to watch in a 2014 Special Report.5 He noted that no two bear markets are the same, and that there are no indicators that have reliably heralded bear phases. Nonetheless, there are some common elements. The safest time to invest in the market is when monetary conditions are favorable, there are no signs of a looming economic downturn, there is not extreme overvaluation, and technical indicators are not flashing red. Some indicators related to each of these fundamental factors are shown in Chart I-14: Chart I-14Equity Bear Market Indicators Monetary Conditions: The yield curve is quite flat by historical standards, but it is far from inverting. Moreover, real short-term interest rates are normally substantially higher than today, and above 2%, when bear markets commence. Excess liquidity, which we define as M2 growth less nominal GDP growth, is also still well above the zero line, a threshold that has warned of a downturn in stock prices in the past. Valuation: Our composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines over-valued. However, this is because of the components that compare equity prices to bond yields. The other three components of the equity indicator, which are unrelated to bond yields, suggest that stock valuation is quite stretched. Economic Outlook: Economic data such as the leading economic indicator and ISM have been unreliable bear market signals. That said, we do not see anything that suggests that a recession is on the horizon. Indeed, U.S. growth is likely to remain above-trend in the second half of the year based on its relationship with financial conditions. Technical conditions: Sentiment is elevated, which is bearish from a contrary perspective. However, breadth, the deviation from the 40-week moving average, and our composite technical indicator are not flashing red. Earnings: Trends in earnings and margins did not provide any additional reliable signals for timing equity market downturns in the past. Still, it has been a bad sign when EPS growth topped out. And this has often been preceded by a peak in industrial production growth. We expect U.S. EPS growth to continue to accelerate for at least a few more months, but are watching industrial production closely. EPS growth in Japan and the Eurozone will likely peak after the U.S., since these markets are not as advanced in the profit rebound. The bottom line is that the equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the main indicators that have provided some leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. Investment Conclusions The major world bourses remain in a sweet spot because of the mini cyclical rebound in profits. One can imagine many scenarios in which equities suffer a major correction or bear phase. However, stocks would likely perform well under the two most likely scenarios for the remainder of the year. If U.S. and global growth disappoint, the combination of low bond yields and still-robust earnings growth will continue to support prices. Conversely, if world growth remains solid and the U.S. picks up, as we expect, then bond yields will rise but investors will pencil-in an even stronger profit advance over the next year. Of course, this win-win situation for stocks will not last forever. Perhaps paradoxically, the economic cycle could be shortened if the U.S. Congress gets around to passing a bill that imparts fiscal stimulus in 2018. The Fed would have to respond with a more aggressive tightening timetable, setting the stage for the next recession. In contrast, the economic cycle would be further stretched out in the absence of fiscal stimulus, keeping alive for a while longer the lackluster growth/low inflation/low bond yield backdrop that has been favorable for the equity market. We are watching the indicators discussed above to time the exit from our pro-risk asset allocation that favors stocks and corporate bonds to government bonds and cash. As for the duration call, the whiff of deflation that has depressed bond yields over the past month is overdone. Investors have also become too complacent on the Fed. We expect that the recent drop in commodity prices, especially oil, will reverse. If this view is correct, it means that the cyclical bull phase in the dollar is not over because market expectations for the pace of Fed rate hikes will rise relative to expectations in the other major economies (with the exception of Canada). We are still looking for a 10% dollar appreciation. It also means that Treasurys will underperform JGBs and Bunds within currency-hedged fixed-income portfolios. We expect the Eurostoxx 600 and the Nikkei indexes to outperform the S&P 500 this year in local currencies, despite our constructive view on U.S. growth. Stocks are cheaper in the former two markets. Moreover, both Japan and the Eurozone are earlier in the profit mini-cycle, which means that there is room for catch-up versus the U.S. over the next 6-12 months when growth in the latter tops-out. The prospect of structural reform in France is also constructive for European stocks, following the election of a reformist legislature in June. However, the upcoming Italian election warrants close scrutiny. The key risk to this base case is our view that oil prices will rebound. This is clearly a non-consensus call. If OPEC production cuts are unable to overwhelm the rise in U.S. shale output, then inventories will remain elevated and oil prices could move even lower in the near term. Our bullish equity view would be fine in this case, but the bond bear market and dollar appreciation we expect would at least be delayed. Finally, a few words on the U.K. Our geopolitical experts highlight two key points related to June's election outcome: fiscal austerity is dead and the U.K. will pursue a "softer" variety of Brexit. This combination should provide a relatively benign backdrop for U.K. stocks and the economy over the next year. Nonetheless, the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the U.K. is large enough to keep the Bank of England (BoE) on hold. Some BoE hawks are agitating for tighter policy due to the worsening inflation overshoot, but it will probably be some time before the consensus on the Monetary Policy Committee shifts in favor of rate hikes. This means that it is too early to position for gilt underperformance within fixed-income portfolios. Sterling weakness looks overdone, although we do not see much upside either. As long as Brexit talks do not become acrimonious (which is our view), the U.K. stock market should be one of the outperformers in local currency terms among the major developed markets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 29, 2017 Next Report: July 27, 2017 1 For more discussion, see Alternative Facts in the Bond Market at BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, dated June 13, 2017 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Views from the Road," dated June 21, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 The first problem is that the S&P data are expressed on a per-share basis. Moreover, the NIPA data adjusts for inventory and depreciation allowance. S&P margins are calculated using sales in the denominator, while we generally use GDP as the denominator for calculating NIPA profits. 4 The NIPA data shown include financials and profits earned overseas, as is the case for the S&P. 5 Please see BCA Special Report "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market," dated January 24, 2014, available at bcaresearch.com II. Preferences As Trading Constraints: A New Asset Allocation Indicator Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. The RPI borrows from Paul Samuelson's "revealed preference" theory of consumer behavior to market behavior. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and the monetary policy backdrop. A trading rule for the stock/bond allocation based on the RPI outperforms traditional technical, monetary, and valuation indicators. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive equity market momentum lines up with positive signals from policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it is best used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. In 1938, economist Paul Samuelson published a paper entitled, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," in which he outlined an alternative to the well-known economic principle, utility theory. He dubbed his work "revealed preference theory."1 His goal was to redefine utility - a measure of consumer satisfaction with a good or service - by observing behavior. He posited that when consumers reveal their preferences by buying one item rather than another, they reveal the way in which they maximize happiness or satisfaction. For instance, one can measure preferences via experiments in which a subject is given $200 and the choice between two brands of shoes at different prices. Repeating the exercise at different levels of income and relative prices generates "preference axioms." Samuelson's theory has many more layers of complexity, but this Special Report focuses on modelling investors' preferences through observed behavior. Borrowing from Samuelson's reasoning, we developed a methodology to identify investors' axioms of preference for equities and bonds at different levels of incomes and prices. Then we compared investors' real actions with those anticipated by our methodology. This allowed us to generalize our findings and analyze the effects on a portfolio of equities and bonds. The main finding of our statistical exercise is that asset allocators can profit from understanding how short-term moves are linked to the market's revealed preferences at different times during the economic cycle. We then use the results to construct an indicator and a trading rule that not only outperforms a buy-and-hold strategy by a wide margin, it outperforms other traditional trading rules as well. Building A Revealed Preference Model Our primary objective in constructing a revealed preference indicator (RPI) is to understand: (1) how market preferences shape the behavior of investors; and (2) how they ultimately affect future returns. To do so, we broke down our analysis into three key areas: Part I identifies market preferences for different levels of income and price in the economy. Part II defines a general investment strategy that utilizes historic preferences and short-term market movements as a market timing tool. Part III optimizes the RPI and compares its historical track record with a buy-and-hold asset allocation and trading rules based on other indicators. Part I - Developing The Framework The first step in building the RPI is to establish the proper control variables. We limited our basket of investable "goods" to U.S. equities and 10-year Treasurys. We also need a variable that is analogous to the income measure that Samuelson used in his study. For the choice facing investors who are deciding between buying two financial assets, we believe that a measure of market "liquidity" is more appropriate than income. By this we do not mean the ease by which financial assets can be bought and sold. Rather, it is "funding liquidity", or how easily it is to borrow to invest. BCA often uses the four phases of the Fed cycle, as interest rates fluctuate around the equilibrium level, as a measure of funding liquidity (Chart II-1):2 Chart II-1Fed Funds Rate As A Proxy For Income Phase I = Policy is accommodative but the fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed is still tightening. Phase III = Policy is tight but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easy and the Fed is cutting rates. The rationale for using the fed funds-rate cycle as a proxy for income is that, when interest rates are below equilibrium, monetary conditions are accommodative. Leverage is easy to obtain because there is plenty of liquidity (income) to fund investments. When conditions are tight, funding liquidity is relatively scarce. To measure relative prices, we first divided the S&P 500 price index by its 12-month moving average and second, we took the inverse of the 10-year Treasury yield divided by 12-month moving average.3 We then used the ratio of these two deviations-from-trend to construct a relative price measure (Chart II-2). This ratio provides a single measure of how expensive stocks and bonds are, not only to each other, but to their own history as well. We then grouped the relative price data into four sets of percentiles, or buckets, shown in Table II-1. Stocks are expensive and bonds cheap at the top of the table, while the reverse is true at the bottom. Chart II-2Constructing A Single Price Measure For Equities And Bonds Table II-1Distribution Of Relative Price Table II-2A presents the average historical monthly percent change in stock prices for each combination of the four relative price and liquidity buckets over the entire dataset. In the fourth phase of the Fed cycle (when monetary conditions are easy and the Fed is still cutting interest rates), and when relative prices are in the first bucket (i.e. stocks are expensive), the average stock price increase during the month was slightly above 1% percent. Table II-2B provides the same breakdown for the average change in bond yields (shown in basis points, not returns). Tables II-2A and II-2B are recalculated at each point in time - meaning that we used an expanding sample to calculate the price buckets, and updated the results for the ensuing price or yield movements as new data are added. That way, we completely avoid the advantage of hindsight. To simplify our methodology, we coded the results to end up with the stock and bond returns for the 16 different combinations of Fed and relative price buckets. Table II-3 uses the results from Tables II-2A and II-2B in the last period of history as an example. The "Liquidity" and "Price" columns indicate the bucket (e.g. price in bucket 1 and liquidity in bucket 1). The "Stocks" and "Bonds" columns are coded as "1" if the asset appreciated during the month given the indicated liquidity/price bucket, and a "0" if it depreciated that month. Table II-2AEquity Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Table II-2BTreasury Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Chart II-3Revealing What Investors Prefer Part II - Habits Create Expectations It is important to keep in mind that the objective of our revealed preference model is not to use the revealed market preferences as forecasts but rather to examine what happens when investors decide to follow or ignore them. Our hypothesis in building this model is that, when investors go against their historical preferences, the result should be interpreted as short-term noise. It is only when preferences and (subsequent) short-term market moves are aligned that we should heed the signal and invest accordingly. Table II-3 can be thought of as the market's revealed preference. Again, keep in mind that we allowed revealed preferences to change over time by recalculating it under our stretching-sample approach. The following steps detail how we used investor preferences to create a trading rule that verifies our hypothesis empirically: Step 1 - Expected vs. Actual: The first step is to examine how actual equity prices and bond yields behaved relative to their expected trajectory. We created two variables - one for equities and one for bonds. If revealed preference last month (t-1) suggested that the asset's return should be positive in the subsequent month (t), and it indeed turned out to be positive in period t, then we coded month t as "1." If both the revealed preference and the actual outcome were negative, we coded it as "-1." If they did not match, the code is "0" (in other words, the market did not follow the typical historical revealed preference). Thus we have two time series, one for bonds and one for stocks, which are made up of 1s, -1s and zeros. Step 2 - Bullish, Bearish, and Neutral: We combined the coded series for stocks and bonds to encompass the nine possible outcomes in our model (i.e. both bonds and stocks can have a value in any month of 1, 0 or -1, providing 9 different combinations). Table II-4 presents the nine outcomes along with the asset allocation that would have maximized investor returns based on our historical analysis. For example, investors were paid to be overweight equities when equities and bonds have a code of "1" and "-1," respectively (top row in Table II-4). In other words, stocks tended to outperform bonds when revealed preferences from the month before predicted rising stock prices and rising bond yields, and these predictions were confirmed. Table II-4Understanding The Signals From Preferences If revealed preference is not confirmed for both bonds and stocks, then it is best for investors to stand aside with a benchmark allocation. Step 3 - "If It Don't Make Dollars, It Don't Make Sense": To test whether our theory would add strategic value, we computed a trading rule to see how well it performed against a benchmark portfolio of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. The trading rule was computed as follows: when the revealed preference for equities is positive (at time t-1) and this signal is confirmed in t, then in t+1 we allocate 100% to the S&P 500 and 0% to Treasurys. When the revealed equity preference signal is correctly bearish, we removed all exposure to equities and allocated 100% to Treasurys. When the signal was neutral, we kept a benchmark allocation of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. Chart II-3 shows that this trading rule outperforms the benchmark, confirming our initial hypothesis - one should fade the short-term movements when investors go against their preferences, and only follow the signals when those movements align with historical preferences. History shows that investors tend to underperform in terms of the stock/bond allocation when they deviate from their revealed preference. Chart II-3Correctly Gauging How Investors Behave Pays Off Part III - Validating The Results One drawback is that this trading rule would require frequent portfolio allocation changes every month, as shown in Chart II-4. As such, we constructed a smoothed version by imposing the rule that asset allocation is unchanged unless the model provides a new signal for two months in a row (Chart II-5).4 These restrictions not only dramatically reduced the frequency of the asset allocation adjustments, but it also augmented historical cumulative excess returns (Chart II-6). Chart II-4Revealed Preference Indicator Is Inherently Volatile Chart II-5Removing Some Of The Noise Any new indicator of course must be able to outperform a buy-and-hold strategy to be useful but it is also interesting to see how its performance ranks compared to a set of random portfolios. This way, we can identify if the indicator truly provides additional information. Random portfolios are generated using a monthly allocations of 100% or 0% to equities, with the remainder in Treasurys. Chart II-7 shows the performance of the smoothed indicator versus a set of 1,000 randomly generated portfolios. Chart II-6Once Smoothed, The RPI Truly Shines Chart II-7The RPI Adds A Significant Amount Of Information We compared the indicator's trading rule to simple moving averages or BCA's other indicators. We also wanted to ensure that the RPI adds value beyond investing based strictly on the four phases of the liquidity cycle or based on relative value alone. We therefore compared the track record of the RPI trading rule to rules that are based on: (1) the deviation of the S&P 500 from its 12-month moving trend; (2) BCA's monetary conditions indicator; (3) BCA's valuation indicator; (4) BCA's technical indicator; (5) the four phases of the Fed cycle; and (6) the relative price index. Charts II-8A and II-8B highlights that RPI indeed impressively dominates the other trading rules. The one exception is that, during the Great Recession, the model's performance fell to roughly match the performance of a S&P 500 technical trading rule. Chart II-8AThe RPI Outperforms The Sum Of Its Parts... Chart II-8B...As Well As Other Indicators Part IV - Conclusions The RPI is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. Quite simply, it 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. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it will best be used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. The indicator's current reading for stocks versus bonds, at benchmark, is more conservative than our official recommendation. The benchmark reading reflects the fact that equities are overvalued and that investors have deviated from their preferences in their past two quarters. David Boucher Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist 1 For more information, please see P. A. Samuelson, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," Economica 5:17 (1938), pp. 61-71. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 We tested a few other measures, most notably the stock-to-bond total return ratio (measured by comparing each asset's total returns), but the chosen measures provided the best and most robust results. 4 We conducted a statistical exercise to validate and optimize the allocations in Table 4 to provide a smoother performance. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Thanks to the recent dollar and bond yield “relief valves”, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. The breakout above this level further stretched valuation metrics. Measures such as the Shiller P/E and price/book are at post tech-bubble highs. Stocks remain expensive based on our composite Valuation Index, although it is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that demarcates over-valuation. This is because our composite indicator includes valuation measures that take into account the low level of interest rates. Of course, once interest rate normalization is well underway, these indicator will not look as favorable. It is good news for the equity market that our Monetary Indicator did not move further into negative territory over the past month. Indeed, the indicator has hooked up slightly and is sitting close to a neutral level. Our equity Technical Indicator remains constructive. Other measures, such as our Speculation Index, composite sentiment and the VIX suggest that equity investors are overly bullish from a contrary perspective. On the other hand, the U.S. earnings surprises diffusion index highlights that upside earnings surprises are broadly based. Our elevated U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator ticked down from a high level this month, suggesting that ‘dry powder’ available to buy this market is depleted. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. In contrast to the U.S., the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway and has some ways to go. We remain overweight both the Eurozone and Japanese markets relative to the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. The pull back in long-term bond yields since March was enough to “move the dial” in terms of the bond valuation or technical indicators. U.S. bond valuation has inched lower to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. We also think that the FOMC is determined to stick with the current tightening timetable in terms of rate hikes and balance sheet adjustment, which support our negative view on bond prices. Now that oversold technical conditions have been unwound, it suggests that the consolidation phase for bond yields is largely complete. The trade-weighted dollar remains quite overvalued on a PPP basis, although less so by other measures. Technically, it is a bearish sign that the dollar moved lower and crossed its 200-day moving average. However, our Composite Technical Indicator highlights that overbought conditions have been worked off. We still believe the U.S. dollar’s bull phase has one more upleg left. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. Most commodities have shifted down over the last month to meet support at their 200-day moving averages. Base metals are due for a bounce, but we are most bullish on oil. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China