Asset Allocation

Highlights Global Yields: Relative growth and inflation trends continue to favor the U.S., with divergences widening as non-U.S. is downshifting. This means that the cyclical peak in spreads between U.S. Treasuries and other developed market government bonds has not been reached yet, and the latest bout of U.S. dollar strength can continue. Stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global government bond portfolios. Italy: Concerns over the future policies of the new Five-Star/League populist coalition government in Italy have triggered a selloff in Italian financial markets. While investors are right to be worried about the potential for greater fiscal stimulus and move vocal euroskepticism from those in charge in Italy, slowing economic growth is an even bigger immediate problem for debt sustainability concerns. Downgrade Italy to underweight (2 of 5) in global government bond portfolios. Feature After knocking on the door of the 3% threshold several times this year, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finally blew through that level last week. The ease with which this move occurred was a bit surprising, given that bond investor sentiment has stayed consistently bearish and Treasury market positioning remains extremely short. This raises the odds of a potential pullback in yields if the U.S. economy or inflation were to lose upside momentum. The only problem for the Treasury market is that neither of those trends is occurring at the moment. Chart of the WeekTreasuries Are Losing##BR##For The Right Reasons U.S. real GDP expanded at a 2.3% annualized rate in the first quarter of 2018, and the latest real-time GDP estimates for the second quarter from the Atlanta Fed (+4.1%) and New York Fed (+3.0%) are calling for an acceleration. The leading economic indicators produced by both the OECD and the Conference Board continue to climb higher, in stark contrast to the lost momentum in hard data and lead indicators in other major regions like Europe and Japan (Chart of the Week). Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data, where core CPI inflation is accelerating in the U.S. and languishing elsewhere. The ability of U.S. Treasury yields to ignore the negative international headlines coming from typical trouble spots like Turkey, Argentina, Italy, Iran and North Korea is impressive. Clearly, none of these developments are big enough (yet!) to have any negative impact on U.S. growth expectations and, in turn, Fed rate hike expectations. At the same time, Fed officials continue to signal that another two or three rate increases are still likely over the remainder of the year. Add in the steady climb in inflation expectations, supported by oil prices reaching multi-year highs, and it is no surprise that those aggressive Treasury short positions have been on the right side of the market. If we were to apply a weather analogy to the global economy, conditions appear "partly sunny" if looking at the U.S, but "mostly cloudy" when looking elsewhere. This has major implications for the future path of U.S. Treasury yields versus other government bond markets, and for the U.S. dollar as well. Expect U.S. Bond Relative Underperformance To Continue From a more global perspective, the ability of non-U.S. bond yields to rise has become more limited. The overall OECD leading economic indicator - which is correlated to real global bond yields - looks to be rolling over, and our diffusion index of individual country indicators shows that this trend is broad-based (Chart 2). Within the major developed economies, only the U.S. stands out as having a rising leading economic indicator (although the Canadian index is holding up at a high level). The most depressed readings come from the three markets we are overweight in our model bond portfolio - the U.K., Japan and Australia (Chart 3). These growth divergences are not only visible in "soft" economic data like leading indicators and purchasing manager indices. U.S. retail sales showed a surprising burst of strength in April, and the release of that data last week was the trigger for pushing the 10-year Treasury yield above 3%. Meanwhile, readings on real GDP growth in the first quarter for the euro area and Japan were quite weak compared to the acceleration seen throughout 2017. In the case of Japan, GDP actually contracted at a 0.6% annualized rate in Q1, ending a run of eight consecutive quarters of positive growth which was the longest such streak in 28 years (Chart 4). Chart 2A Stagflationary Tug-Of-War##BR##On Global Yields Chart 3U.S. Growth##BR##Stands Out Chart 4Is China To Blame For##BR##Slowing Non-U.S. Growth? At the same time, China's domestic economy has seen some slowing of growth, as well, as evidenced by the rapid deceleration of import growth (bottom panel). For the economies in Europe and Japan where growth is still heavily geared towards exports, and where domestic demand still struggles to gain sustainable upward momentum in the absence of an export/production cycle, a slowing China poses a big problem - one that is less of an issue for the more domestically-focused U.S. economy. The divergence of growth and inflation accelerating in the U.S. but potentially peaking out elsewhere, can be seen in the widening of government bond yield spreads between the U.S. and its developed market peers. In Table 1, we show the change in the bond yield spread between 10-year U.S. Treasuries and similar maturity government debt from the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia since the last major trough in global yields in September 2017. The spread changes are broken down into movements in inflation expectations and real yields to see which was more influential. For example, of the 75bps widening in the 10-year U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread, 55bps has been due to widening real yield differentials and only 20bps has come from higher inflation expectations in the U.S. Table 1Cross-Country Yield Spread Changes (in bps) Since The September 2017 Low In U.S. Treasury Yields These changes show that the underperformance of U.S. Treasuries (i.e. spread widening) has come mostly though higher real yields in the U.S. Inflation expectations are widening in the U.S., but are also moving higher in all other countries except the U.K. So the relative change in inflation expectations between the U.S. and the other countries has been more modest than the absolute change in U.S. TIPS breakevens (Chart 5). The fact that the real yield differentials are moving increasingly in favor of the U.S. has implications for the U.S. dollar. The greenback has finally begun to appreciate after the weakness seen in 2017, with potentially a lot more room to run judging by the levels implied by those wide real yield gaps. This is most evident for the euro, yen and British pound (Chart 6). Chart 5Higher Inflation Expectations##BR##& Yields In The U.S. Chart 6USD Finally Responding To Wide##BR##Real Yield Differentials The path of the U.S. dollar is the key to how this U.S./non-U.S. growth divergence story will end. If the dollar continues to strengthen as the Fed lifts rates in the coming months, then monetary conditions in the U.S. run the risk of moving into restrictive territory. This could spur a bout of renewed U.S. market turbulence not unlike that seen in 2015 and 2016 when the Fed was trapped in what we described at the time as a "policy loop", where a higher dollar and rising market volatility (especially in the emerging markets) prompted the Fed to delay planned rate hikes. The circumstances are different now compared to three years ago. The dollar is only mildly appreciating from the depressed levels of 2017, U.S. core inflation is approaching the Fed's 2% target, and the U.S. economy is at full employment with fiscal stimulus on the way. In other words, the hurdle for the Fed to alter its current rate hike plans is much higher than it was in 2015/16 when the U.S. economy and inflation were in more fragile states. For now, we continue to see relative growth and inflation trends pushing in a direction for continued U.S. government bond underperformance over the balance of 2018. One-sided bearish positioning may create a backdrop where Treasury yields could fall for a brief period, but the true cyclical peak in yields - somewhere in the 3.25-3.5% range - and in U.S./non-U.S. yield spreads has not been reached yet. Bottom Line: Relative growth and inflation trends continue to favor the U.S., with divergences widening as non-U.S. is downshifting. This means that the cyclical peak in spreads between U.S. Treasuries and other developed market government bonds has not been reached yet, and the latest bout of U.S. dollar strength can continue. Stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global government bond portfolios. Italy: Worry More About Slowing Growth Than Politics Italian political risk returned to European financial markets last week after details of the policy program for the new Five-Star Movement/League coalition government were leaked to the press. Some of the more alarming proposals included: Having the European Central Bank (ECB) "freeze" or "cancel" the €250bn in Italian government debt it holds via its asset purchase program. Revising the rules of the European Union (EU) Growth and Stability Pact, specifically its fiscal rules on debt and deficits, while also asking for Europe to, more generally, return to a "pre-Maastricht" (pre-euro?) position. These headlines were interpreted as a sign that the populists taking over Italy were looking for a way to loosen fiscal policy in excess of EU rules, if not abandon the euro currency entirely. This would be a realization of the outcome from the March election that investors feared the most. Markets responded as expected, with Italian government bond yields soaring across the entire yield curve and Italian equities and the euro selling off (Chart 7). We last discussed Italy back in February in a Special Report co-written with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy.1 We concluded that, even though euroskepticism would continue to have appeal in Italy because support for the common currency is much weaker than in the rest of the euro area (Chart 8), none of the likely coalition partners in a new government would make noise about potentially bringing back the lira with the economy in a cyclical expansion. All of the likely winning coalitions would seek to ease Italian fiscal policy, however, which would bring back investor worries about Italian debt sustainability. Chart 7The Return Of##BR##The Italy Risk Premium Chart 8The Euro Is Still Less Popular##BR##In Italy Than Elsewhere The first part of our conclusion went in a fashion that we did not expect, with the anti-establishment Five-Star party joining forces with the far-right League in a populist coalition that could embrace euroskepticism more emphatically. The second part of that conclusion does appear to be panning out, with the new government already looking to cut taxes and ramp up fiscal spending. These outcomes would be enough for investors to begin pricing in a higher fiscal risk premium in Italian assets, thus justifying the market moves seen last week. Yet there was one other conclusion from our report that is more relevant now for fixed income investors. Italian government bonds would not begin to underperform until there were signs that Italy's economy was slowing - which is what appears to be happening now. Like the rest of the euro area, Italy saw a deceleration of economic growth in the first quarter of the year. The most cyclical components of the Italian economy, manufacturing and exports, have both shown a considerable deceleration. Exports to non-EU countries, in particular, have noticeably slowed (Chart 9), which is likely yet another sign of how slowing Chinese growth is spilling over into much of the global economy through trade channels. Domestic demand has seen some cyclical strength on the back of the surge in exports, production and employment seen in 2016/17. However, the risk now is that slowing exports feed back into slowing production and weaker hiring activity. Any sign of a slowdown would only embolden the new coalition government to aim for easier fiscal policy. That would be a logical response by any government, particularly with current budget forecasts calling for tightening fiscal policy over the next few years. The latest set of debt and deficit projections from the IMF show that Italy is expected to have a balanced budget by 2021 (Chart 10). This would imply that the primary budget balance (i.e. net of interest payments) would rise to as high as 3.6% of GDP - an enormously restrictive policy stance that no advanced economy currently runs. Chart 9Italian Cyclical Momentum##BR##Has Peaked Chart 10This Rosy Trajectory For##BR##Italian Debt Will Not Happen That degree of fiscal tightening also makes the debt dynamics of Italy look much more sustainable, with debt/GDP projected to fall by ten percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (bottom panel). Given the leanings of the new government, and with the economy starting to lose some momentum, there is zero chance that the IMF deficit and debt projections will come to fruition. In fact, the opposite is likely to happen under the new government, with the fiscal deficit likely to widen and debt/GDP likely to increase. While a return to the "bad old" economic policies of Italy might harken back to the days of the 2011 European debt crisis, there are two major differences between then and now: Italy's borrowing costs are far lower, thanks to the hyper-easy monetary policies of the ECB (both zero/negative interest rates and outright bond purchases). The average debt on newly-issued Italian government debt has plunged from the 6-7% levels around the time of the debt crisis to less than 1% over the past three years, according to the Bank of Italy (Chart 11). This has helped substantially reduce the amount of net interest payments made by the Italian government - by one full percentage point of GDP, according to the IMF. Less Italian debt is owned by non-Italian residents than during the crisis. According to data from the Bruegel think tank in Brussels, the percentage of Italian sovereign debt held by non-Italian residents is now 36%, compared to 50% during the years before the crisis (Chart 12). As that crisis unfolded, those investors rapidly dumped their Italian bonds, cutting their ownership share by ten percentage points in less than one year. Domestic Italian banks were forced to pick up the slack, which increased the already significant fiscal exposure of the Italian banking system. Now, the ownership mix is much more balanced, including the 20% of Italian bonds owned by the ECB. This means that, today, 64% of Italy's debt is owned by those with a vested interest in Italian stability, rather than fickle foreign investors who would be much more willing to dump their bonds when the Italian news turns less favorable. Chart 11The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today Chart 12A Smaller Share Of Italy's Debt Is Held By Fickly Foreigners Now Vs 2011 This is not to say that another Italian debt crisis could not happen, especially if the Five-Star/League coalition were to more seriously discuss a potential exit from the euro. The only difference now is that Italy's debt sustainability issues are not as acute as in 2011 because of the low borrowing costs and more diverse ownership of Italian debt. Chart 13Downgrade Italian Debt To Underweight From a bond strategy perspective, however, we are more focused on the growth dynamics in Italy than the current political noise. As we also concluded in our February Special Report, the time to downgrade Italian debt was when the economy was clearly about to slow, as heralded by a decline in the OECD's leading economic indicator for Italy. That series has been highly correlated to the relative performance of Italian government debt (Chart 13) and, therefore, is a useful indicator to follow to determine Italian bond strategy. With the leading indicator now falling for four consecutive months, and with hard Italian data also starting to slow, a period of Italian bond underperformance has likely just begun - an outcome that can only be made worse by the new euroskeptic and free spending Italian government. Thus, we are downgrading Italy in our country rankings this week to underweight (2 out of 5), and cutting our recommended allocations to Italian debt in our model bond portfolio to ½ index weight. We place the proceeds of that reduction into German bonds across the yield curve. Bottom Line: Concerns over the future policies of the new Five-Star/League populist coalition government in Italy have triggered a selloff in Italian financial markets. While investors are right to be worried about the potential for greater fiscal stimulus and move vocal euroskepticism from those in charge in Italy, slowing economic growth is an even bigger immediate problem for debt sustainability concerns. Downgrade Italy to underweight (2 of 5) in global government bond portfolios. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now", dated February 21st 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

As with all bull markets, the question on investors' minds has never been if it would end but when it will end as the former is a certainty and the latter is the source of alpha. We have previously noted that by almost all measures, this is the longest bull market in history1 and, with its age starting to show, it is time to focus on late-cycle dynamics. Our preferred leading indicator for declines in U.S. equity markets has been the ISM manufacturing composite index. The ISM has, despite a few false positives, led both recessions and S&P 500 troughs with remarkable accuracy (Chart 1). Chart 1Our Preferred Leading Indicator When gains in the S&P 500 are broken into their respective components, it becomes apparent that the ISM is a strong predictor of both sentiment, as measured by changes in the valuation multiple (Chart 2), as well as profit prospects, as measured by earnings growth (Chart 3). Chart 2ISM Leads Valuation... Chart 3...And Earnings Still, valuations and earnings eventually, and invariably, converge, usually explosively so in a recession. Accordingly, measuring the ISM's lead time should provide some insight into the duration of the economic expansion as well as appropriate sector allocation. In our last Weekly Report,2 we examined how in the late/later stages of economic expansion, banks, representing a prototypical early-cyclical sector, underperformed the broad market. In this report, we are broadening the analysis to all of the GICS1 sectors of the S&P 500. Timing Is Everything We begin our analysis by examining the duration of leads between the cyclical peak of the ISM and the end of economic expansion (i.e. the start of recession as defined by the NBER) going back to the 1960s with our results summarized in Table 1. These results are somewhat unhelpful as the durations range from as short as 8 months at the beginning of the 1980s to more than 3 years, as in the period preceding the Great Recession. With the hypothesis in mind that the market would have sniffed out a recession before economic activity actually began to contract, we split the duration into two periods: the time between the peak of the ISM and the peak of the S&P 500 and the time between the peak of the S&P 500 and the beginning of the recession (Table 2). While the duration inconsistency between iterations argues against using this data to forecast the longevity of an equity bull market, a closer examination of the periods yields a key insight: The duration of the blow off phase of the bull market is on average more than three times longer than the fall before the recession. Table 1ISM Peak To Recession Table 2Late Cycle Can Be Split in Two Phases Still, the purpose of this report is not to estimate the length of time between the most recent ISM peak (March, 2018) and recession; as shown above, such an exercise would be meaningless as history has never rhymed in this regard. Rather, this Special Report should offer a portfolio allocation roadmap if, as we believe, the ISM has peaked but the S&P 500 has yet to see its cyclical highs.3 Riding The Wave Chart 4S&P 500 Cycle-On-Cycle Returns Chart 4 shows a cycle-on-cycle analysis of S&P 500 returns in the periods between the peak of the ISM and the beginning of the recession, across the seven iterations since the 1960's. This chart requires some explanation; because the time frames between ISM peak and recession vary so substantially per iteration, we have segmented each period into eight parts. Each part can represent a time frame as short as one or as long as eight months; what matters is the direction of the market, not the time frame. We have overlaid this cycle-on-cycle chart with the S&P 500, indexed to 0 at the most recent ISM peak in March of this year. It is worth qualifying that the S&P 500 peaked before the ISM in two of the seven iterations we have examined and, by overlaying the year-to-date S&P 500 over this curve, we are explicitly stating that we expect the S&P 500 peak in the current cycle to follow the peak in the ISM, as happened in five iterations, including the most recent three (please refer to our recent publication where we lifted our SPX peak target to 32004). Despite the machinations in creating Chart 4, the pattern is remarkably consistent; the S&P 500 falls modestly after the ISM peaks but then delivers one last hurrah, before the end of the cycle. Once again, however, the trick to securing the excess returns earned in the fat times is timing, as the fall after the S&P 500 peak is precipitous. Further, given the much shorter time frame on the back end of the curve, haste is of the essence. Sector Winners & Losers As shown in Table 3, the average return of the S&P 500 from the peak of the ISM to the beginning of the recession is a fairly modest 6.7% (non-compounded). That return appears even more modest in the context of an average 25 month duration. When the returns are split into the periods before and after the peak of the S&P 500, the 25% gain before the peak and the 12% decline after (Tables 4 and 5) are more significant and underscore the role of timing for capital preservation in the late cycle. Table 3Health Care Outperforms In The Late Cycle Table 4High Beta Stocks Outperform Early... Table 5...Defensive Stocks Beat Late The top performers in the first phase of the late cycle equity market surge are some of the highest beta sectors, including energy and technology. Also, unsurprisingly, these sectors have performed poorly in the latter phase we examined when the market slides toward recession. Still, we would highlight the S&P energy index as a portfolio overweight in the late cycle. Energy has historically been the top performer from the peak of the ISM to the peak of the S&P 500 and, while it is a sub-par performer in the latter stages, it continues to outperform the falling broad market. Further, energy registered relative performance gains in every iteration we examined and was the only sector to consistently repeat its performance, positive or negative. The current iteration of the late cycle should probably see stellar returns in this sector as crude oil prices have only recently broken out, a pattern that has repeated following other ISM peaks (Chart 5); BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy expects this trend to continue in 2018. As such, the nascent turnaround in sector performance (Chart 6) should have long legs; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight in this deep cyclical sector. Chart 5Oil And ISM Move In Sync... Chart 6...And So Do Energy Equities Another interesting insight from this research is the strong performance of the S&P health care sector in both phases we examined (Chart 7). This is largely due to the high-beta biotech sub-sector outperforming early (Chart 8) with the more defensive managed health care and pharma sub-indexes sustaining the outperformance following the SPX peak (Chart 9). Chart 7Health Care Is A Resilient Late Cycle Performer Chart 8Biotech Leads Early In light of this research and given recent pricing power developments, we are adding an upgrade alert to the pharma and biotech groups and thus to the broad S&P health care index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5BIOT - ABBV, AMGN, GILD,CELG, BIIB, VRTX, ALXN, REGN, INCY and BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, LLY, AGN, ZTS, MYL, NKTR, PRGO. Chart 9...While Pharma Outperforms Late Stay Cyclical (For Now) The current backdrop of a Fed that seems likely to be permissive of an inflation overshoot (or at least not too hawkish), combined with a strong domestic fiscal thrust in the form of tax cuts and a potential infrastructure bill, supports our thesis that, despite being past the peak of the ISM, the S&P 500 has not yet seen its best days. Accordingly, the upshot of our analysis is that it pays to maintain a cyclical portfolio bent to capture the most lucrative phase of the bull market. This is reflected in our overall portfolio allocation; we note that the top and bottom performers in this analysis (S&P energy and S&P telecom services, Table 3) are overweight and underweight, respectively, on our high conviction list. Still, our upgrade alerts in the health care sector should stand as a caution to readers that we are prepared to reduce beta in our portfolio allocation should our other leading indicators flash yellow. For now, however, we continue to believe the odds of recession are close to nil on a 9-12 month horizon and, accordingly, remain positive on the broad market's prospects with a cyclical portfolio allocation over defensive. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening," dated April 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Resilient," dated May 14, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ibid.

Highlights 0 To 3 Months: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. 6 to 12 Months: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. Total Return Forecasts: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Feature Chart 1Two Milestones The U.S. bond market reached one noteworthy milestone last week and is quickly closing in on another. The first milestone is that the 10-year Treasury yield decisively broke through the 3% level that had defined its most recent peak (Chart 1). The second milestone is that the market is now close to fully pricing-in the likely near-term path for Fed rate hikes. We noted in a recent report that the Fed's "gradual" rate hike path is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter.1 This equates to 100 bps on our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, which currently sits at 91 bps, just below this key level (Chart 1, bottom panel). We continue to see upside in Treasury yields on a cyclical horizon. Though tactically, the likelihood of a near-term pullback in yields has increased greatly during the past few days. In this week's report we outline the case for a near-term (0-3 month) pullback in Treasury yields, but also look ahead by introducing a simple framework investors can use to make total return forecasts for all different U.S. bond sectors. The Case For A Near-Term Pullback In addition to the fact that the market is closer to fully discounting the likely near-term path of rate hikes than it has been for some time, there are two other reasons to expect a near-term, temporary pullback in yields. The first is that the below-benchmark duration trade has become the consensus position in the market (Chart 2). Net speculative short positions in 10-year Treasury futures have rarely been greater, and since the financial crisis large net short positions have correlated quite strongly with a decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months. Similarly, positions reported in the JP Morgan Duration Survey are firmly in "net short" territory for both the "all clients" and "active clients" surveys. The Marketvane survey of bond sentiment has also turned bearish for only the fourth time since 2010. Each of the other three times has coincided with a near-term drop in yields. Chart 2Bond Market Looks Oversold But positioning alone would not be enough to convince us that yields might decline in the near-term. Investors also need a catalyst. An excuse to take profits on large net short positions that have been working well. That catalyst is typically a period of worse-than-expected economic data. To judge the trend in economic data relative to expectations we turn to the Economic Surprise Index. Chart 3Economic Surprise Index In a report from last year we demonstrated that if the Economic Surprise Index ends a month below (above) the zero line, it is very likely that Treasury yields fell (rose) during that month.2 Also, we know that the surprise index is mean reverting by its very nature. A long period of positive (negative) data surprises will certainly be followed an upward (downward) revision to investors' economic expectations. Eventually expectations become so elevated (depressed) that they become impossible to surpass (disappoint). The index will then start to mean revert. In that same report from last year we also introduced a simple auto-regressive model of the surprise index, designed to capture its average speed of mean reversion. Based on that model, which is purely a function of the index's own lags, we would expect the surprise index to dip slightly into negative territory in one month's time (Chart 3). Though given the large amount of uncertainty in the model, a fairer assessment would be that it is no longer a given that the surprise index will remain above the zero line in the near-term. Bottom Line: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. Less nimble investors are better off riding out any potential near-term volatility and maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. The Cyclical Picture Is Unchanged On a 6-12 month investment horizon, we are sticking with the playbook of our Two-Stage Bond Bear Market.3 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations, and here, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still slightly below our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 4). We also think bond investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product, though the time to trim exposure is approaching. Because the Fed's support for credit markets will weaken as inflation pressures mount, we will start reducing exposure to spread product once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are within our target 2.3% to 2.5% band. The intuition that the credit cycle is long in the tooth is further supported by the fact that the 2/10 Treasury curve is close to 50 bps (Chart 4, bottom panel). In a recent report we showed that while corporate bond excess returns relative to Treasuries usually remain positive until the yield curve inverts, they decline dramatically once the slope dips below 50 bps.4 Valuation also remains tight in the corporate bond market. While investment grade corporate bond spreads have widened in recent months, the junk spread is still close to its post-crisis low, as is the differential between the junk and investment grade spread (Chart 5). Chart 4Inflation Compensation Chart 5Flirting With The Lows The recent widening of investment grade corporate spreads appears to simply reflect a reversion to more reasonable valuation levels, after they had been extremely expensive at the start of the year. Chart 6 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each investment grade credit tier. We look at the breakeven spread - defined as the spread widening required to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon - in order to adjust for the changing duration of the index over time. Chart 6 also shows the breakeven spread as a percentile rank relative to history. In other words, it shows the percentage of time that the breakeven spread has been lower in the past. Notice that earlier in the year investment grade corporate spreads had been approaching all-time expensive levels. They are now closer to the 25th percentile, much more in line with similar spreads for the High-Yield credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 6Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 7High-Yield Breakeven Spreads There is no longer a risk-adjusted opportunity in high-yield corporate bonds relative to investment grade. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. A Simple Framework For Forecasting Total Returns In a recent report we observed that, using a 12-month investment horizon, the difference between market expectations for the change in the federal funds rate and the actual change in the federal funds rate closely tracks the price return from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index.5 With that in mind, this week we extend that analysis to develop a simple framework for forecasting bond total returns. The framework relies on the fact that the "12-month rate hike surprise" described above is correlated with the 12-month change in Treasury yields. The Appendix to this report shows the historical correlation between the 12-month rate hike surprise and the 12-month change in several different par-coupon Treasury yields. Unsurprisingly, the correlation is very strong for short maturity yields, and gradually weakens as we move further out the curve. This is important because it means that the total return forecasts we generate from this exercise will be more accurate for bond sectors with low duration than for those with high duration. Table 1 shows the total return forecasts we generated for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index and for several of its maturity buckets. The results are presented in such a way that readers can impose their own forecasts for the number of Fed rate hikes that will occur during the next 12 months, and then map that forecast to a reasonable expectation for Treasury total returns. Table 1Treasury Index Total Return Forecasts For example, in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates four times (100 bps) during the next year, given current market pricing the rate hike surprise will be modestly negative.6 Using the historical correlations shown in the Appendix, we map that rate hike surprise to changes in the par-coupon Treasury curve and then use the duration and convexity attributes of each individual index to determine how that shift in the Treasury curve will impact index returns. In the scenario described above we would expect the Treasury Master Index to return +2.13% during the next year. While this is a slightly positive number, it is close enough to zero that it does not provide much insulation from changes in long-dated yields that are unrelated to the near-term path for rate hikes. Further, in the four rate hike scenario, investors moving from the Treasury Master Index to the 1-3 year index need only sacrifice 12 bps of expected return to reduce their duration risk by a factor of three. Such a risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a below-benchmark duration stance on a 12-month investment horizon. Table 2 repeats the same exercise but for the major spread sectors of the U.S. bond market. To estimate spread sector total returns we need to forecast both the shift in the Treasury curve and whether spreads will widen, tighten or remain constant. Specifically, we assume that spreads either widen or tighten by the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each index, calculated using a post-crisis interval. Table 2Spread Product Total Return Forecasts The results show that, in a four rate hike scenario, we should expect 12-month investment grade corporate bond total returns of approximately 3.4%, assuming also that spreads stay flat. In a scenario where the average index spread widens by 42 bps, we should expect total returns of only 1%. Bottom Line: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Spread product returns should continue to beat Treasuries for the time being, but the window for outperformance is starting to close. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 8Change In 1-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 2-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 3-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 5-Year Yield Vs.12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 7-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 10-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 14Change In 30-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Coming To Grips With Gradualism", dated May 8, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month rate hike surprise is defined as the 12-month Fed Funds Discounter less the actual change in the fed funds rate during the following 12 months. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation is either too high or too low, and the current account position is either too large or too small. The global economy has made significant progress in moving towards both internal and external balance over the past few years, but shortfalls remain. A number of large economies, including Japan, China, and Italy, continue to need stimulative fiscal policy to prop up domestic demand. In Italy's case, investor unease about the country's fiscal outlook is likely to raise borrowing costs for the government, curb capital inflows into the euro area, and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the euro. The U.S. should be tightening fiscal policy at this stage in the cycle. Instead, President Trump has pushed through significant fiscal easing. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield hit a seven-year high this week. An overheated U.S. economy will pave the way for further Fed hikes, which will likely result in a stronger dollar. Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets. Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Feature The Dismal Science, Illustrated Last week's report discussed the market consequences of the tug-of-war that policymakers often face in trying to achieve a variety of economic objectives with a limited set of policy instruments.1 In passing, we mentioned that some of these trade-offs can be depicted using the so-called Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan. This week's report delves further into this topic by estimating where various economies find themselves inside the Swan Diagram, and what this may mean for their currency, equity, and bond markets. True to the reputation of economics as the dismal science, the Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness" (Chart 1). Each zone represents a different way in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). This amounts to saying that an economy can suffer from one of the following: 1) high unemployment and an excessively large current account deficit; 2) high inflation and an excessively large current account surplus; 3) high unemployment and an excessively large current account surplus; and 4) high inflation and an excessively large current account deficit. Box 1 describes the logic behind the diagram. Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness BOX 1 The Logic Behind The Swan Diagram As noted in the main text, the Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation are either too high or too low, and the current account balance is either too large or too small. A rightward movement along the horizontal axis can be construed as an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis can be thought of as an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule, which corresponds to the ideal state where the economy is at full employment and inflation is stable, is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order to keep the economy from overheating. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. A depreciation of the currency via an easing in monetary policy is necessary to bring imports back down. Any point to the right of the internal balance schedule represents too much inflation; any point to the left represents too much unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Note that according to the Swan Diagram, an economy that suffers from high unemployment may still need a weaker currency even if it already has a current account surplus. Intuitively, this is because a depressed economy suppresses imports, leading to a "stronger" current account balance than would otherwise be the case. We use two variables to estimate the degree to which an economy has diverged from internal balance: core inflation and the output gap (Chart 2). If the output gap is negative, the economy is producing less output than it is capable of. If the output gap is positive, the economy is operating beyond full capacity. All things equal, high core inflation and a large and positive output gap is symptomatic of an economy that is showing signs of overheating. Chart 2The Two Dimensions Of Internal Balance When it comes to estimating the extent to which an economy is deviating from external balance, we include both the current account position and the net international investment position (NIIP) in our calculations (Chart 3). The NIIP is the difference between an economy's external assets and its liabilities. If one were to sum all current account balances into the distant past and adjust for valuation effects, one would end up with the net international investment position. If a country has a positive NIIP, it can run a current account deficit over time by running down its accumulated foreign wealth.2 Chart 3The Two Dimensions Of External Balance Policy And Market Outcomes Within The Swan Diagram Chart 4 shows our estimates of where the main developed and emerging markets fall into the Swan Diagram. The top right quadrant depicts economies that need to tighten both monetary and fiscal policy. The bottom left quadrant depicts economies that need to ease both monetary and fiscal policy. The other two quadrants denote cases where either tighter fiscal/looser monetary policy or looser fiscal/tighter monetary policy are appropriate. In order to gauge progress over time, we attach an arrow to each data point. The base of the arrow shows where the economy was five years ago and the tip shows where it is today. Chart 4Policy Prescription Arising From The Swan Diagram From a market perspective, an economy's currency is likely to weaken if it finds itself in one of the two quadrants requiring easier monetary policy. Among developed economies, the best combination for equities in local-currency terms is usually an easier monetary policy and a looser fiscal policy. That is also the configuration that results in the sharpest steepening of the yield curve. Conversely, the worst outcome for developed market stocks in local-currency terms is tighter monetary policy coupled with fiscal austerity. That is also the policy package that is most likely to result in a flatter yield curve. In dollar terms, a stronger local currency will typically boost returns. This is particularly the case in emerging markets, where stock markets are likely to suffer in situations where the home currency is under pressure. A few observations come to mind: The global economy has made significant progress in restoring internal balance over the past five years. That said, negative output gaps remain in nearly half of the countries in our sample. And even in several cases where output gaps have disappeared, a shortfall in inflation suggests the presence of latent slack that official estimates of excess capacity may be missing. External imbalances have also declined over time. Since earth does not trade with Mars, the global current account balance and net international investment position must always be equal to zero. Nevertheless, the absolute value of current account balances, expressed as a share of global GDP, has fallen by half since 2006 (Chart 5). Chart 5Shrinking Global Imbalances The decline in China's current account balance has played a key role in facilitating the rebalancing of demand across the global economy. The current account showed a deficit in Q1 for the first time in 17 years. While several technical factors exacerbated the decline, the current account will probably register a surplus of only 1% of GDP this year, down from a peak of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The Chinese economy also appears to be close to internal balance. However, maintaining full employment has come at the cost of rapid credit growth and a massive quasi-public sector deficit, which the IMF estimates currently stands at over 12% of GDP (Chart 6). Thus, one could argue that a somewhat weaker currency and less credit expansion would be in China's best interest. Similar to China, Japan has been able to reach internal balance only through lax fiscal policy (Chart 7). The lesson here is that economies such as China and Japan which have a surfeit of savings - partly reflecting a very low neutral real rate of interest - would probably be better off with cheaper currencies rather than having to rely on artificial means of propping up demand. Chart 6China's 'Secret' Budget Deficit Chart 7The Cost Of Propping Up Demand Germany has overtaken China as the biggest contributor to current account surpluses in the world. Germany's current account surplus now stands at over 8% of GDP, up from a small deficit in 1999, when the euro came into inception. In contrast to China and Japan, Germany is running a fiscal surplus. Solely from its perspective, Germany would benefit from more fiscal stimulus and a stronger euro. The problem, of course, is that a stronger euro would not be in the best interest of most other euro area economies. While external imbalances within the euro area have decreased markedly over the past decade, they have not gone away (Chart 8). Investors also remain wary of fiscal easing in Southern Europe. This week's spike in Italian bond yields - fueled by speculation that a Five-Star/League government will abandon plans for fiscal consolidation - is a timely reminder that the bond vigilantes are far from dead (Chart 9). The Italian government's borrowing costs are likely to rise over the coming months, which will curb capital inflows into the euro area and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the common currency. Chart 8The Euro Club: Imbalances Have Been Decreasing Chart 9Uh Oh Spaghettio! The U.S. is the opposite of Germany. Unlike Germany, it has a large fiscal deficit and a current account deficit. The Swan Diagram says that the U.S. would benefit from tighter fiscal policy and a weaker dollar. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have other plans, however. They have pushed through large tax cuts and significant spending increases (Chart 10). This will likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than the market is currently discounting, leading to a stronger dollar. Chart 10The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets, particularly those with current account deficits and negative net international investment positions. High levels of external debt could exacerbate any problems (Chart 11). On that basis, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Chart 11External Debt And Debt Servicing Across EM Investment Conclusions Chart 12The U.S. Economy Is Doing ##br##Better Than Its Peers The global economy is approaching internal balance, but this may produce some unpleasant side effects. Productivity growth is anaemic and the retirement of baby boomers from the workforce will reduce the pace of labor force growth. In such a setting, potential GDP growth in many countries is likely to remain subpar. If demand growth continues to outstrip supply growth, inflation will rise. Heightened stock market volatility this year has partly been driven by the realization among investors that the Goldilocks environment of above-trend growth and low inflation may not last as long as they had hoped. The U.S. economy has now moved beyond full employment, and bountiful fiscal stimulus could lead to further overheating. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield reached a seven-year high this week. Continued above-trend growth is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than the market expects, which should result in a stronger dollar. The fact that the U.S. economy is outperforming the rest of the world based on economic surprise indices and our leading economic indicators could give the dollar a further lift (Chart 12). A resurgent dollar will help boost competitiveness in developed economies such as Japan and Europe. Emerging markets will also benefit in the long run from cheaper currencies, but if the adjustment happens rapidly, as is often the case, this could exact a short-term toll. For the time being, investors should overweight developed over emerging markets in equity portfolios. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 2 To keep things simple, we assume that a country's Net International Investment Position (NIIP) shrinks to zero over 50 years. Thus, if a country has a positive NIIP of 50% of GDP, we assume that it should target a current account deficit of 1% of GDP; whereas if it has a negative NIIP of 50% of GDP, it should target a current account surplus of 1% of GDP. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Stay tactically long the SEK. Our preferred expression is long SEK/GBP. Stay tactically short the NOK. Our preferred expression is long AUD/NOK. Take profits in the underweight to Poland... ...and open a tactical countertrend position: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. A coalition of populists governing Italy might ruffle some feathers in Brussels, but the main risk appears to be contained. Both The League and 5 Star Movement have dropped calls for a referendum on Italy's membership of the monetary union. Feature Italy And The U.K. Compete For Political Risk The European political lens is once again focussed on Italy as the two anti-establishment parties - The League and 5 Star Movement - negotiate to form a government. A coalition of populists governing Italy might ruffle some feathers in Brussels, but the main risk appears to be contained. Both parties have dropped calls for a referendum on Italy's membership of the monetary union, and have instead turned their fire on the EU's fiscal rules, specifically the 3 per cent limit on budget deficits. Chart of the WeekThe SEK Is Due A Tactical Rebound The populist demand for some fiscal relaxation is actually smart economics. When the private sector is paying down debt - as it is in Italy - private sector demand shrinks. To prevent a recession, the government must step in to borrow and spend the paid-down debt. And what seems to be fiscal largesse does not lead to crowding out, inflation, or surging interest rates. This means that as long as Italian populists correctly push back on the EU's draconian fiscal rules rather than the monetary union per se, the market is right to regard Italian politics as a drama, rather than an existential risk to the euro (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Market Remains Unconcerned ##br##About Euro Break-Up Risk Maybe the European political lens should be focussed instead on Britain. The Conservative party remains as bitterly divided as ever on its vision for the U.K.'s future trading and customs relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Paralysed and frightened by this division, Theresa May is delaying the legislative passage of three crucial bills - the EU Withdrawal Bill, the Trade Bill, and the Customs Bill. When these bills eventually reach a vote in the House of Commons later this year, any one of them could result in a humiliating defeat for May - and, quite likely, resignations from the government. Meanwhile, as the government kicks the issue into the long grass, firms are holding fire on long-term spending commitments in the U.K. and rechannelling the investment to elsewhere in Europe. Buy SEKs, Avoid NOKs For all the recent swings in the euro versus the dollar and pound, the trade-weighted euro has remained a paragon of relative stability (Chart I-3). This is because the moves versus the dollar and pound have largely cancelled out (Chart I-4). Earlier this year, euro weakness versus the pound coincided with strength versus the dollar; more recently, euro weakness versus the dollar has coincided with strength versus the pound. Chart I-3The Trade-Weighted Euro Has ##br##Remained Relatively Stable... Chart I-4...Because Moves Versus The Dollar And The ##br##Pound Have Largely Cancelled Out Interestingly, the driver of the trade-weighted euro remains the same as it has been for the past fifteen years - it is simply the euro area's long bond yield shortfall versus the U.K. and U.S. (Chart I-5). With the ECB already at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy, the path for policy rate expectations cannot go meaningfully lower. This means that the trade-weighted euro has some long-term support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that could be priced out, while the ECB effectively doesn't. Chart I-5The Trade Weighted Euro Is A Function Of The Euro Area's ##br##Long Bond Yield Shortfall Versus The U.K. And U.S. Put another way, for the trade-weighted euro to drift significantly lower, relative surprises in the economic, financial and political news have to be significantly worse in the euro area than in both the U.K. and the U.S. We think this configuration is unlikely. Nevertheless, the more interesting tactical opportunities lie elsewhere: the Swedish krona and the Norwegian krone. Recent tweaks to monetary policy frameworks in Sweden and Norway are responsible, at least partly, for technically exaggerated moves in their currencies which are likely to reverse. In the case of Sweden, the inflation target is unchanged at 2 per cent but the Riksbank introduced a variation band of 1-3 per cent, because "monetary policy is not able to steer inflation in detail." Given that Sweden's inflation rate is now close to 2 per cent, the market interpreted this tweak as very dovish - because it permits the continuation of ultra-accommodative policy. The upshot was that the SEK sold off. But our tried and tested indicator of excessive groupthink suggests that the currency may have overreacted (Chart of the Week). Hence, the tactical opportunity is to stay long the SEK, and our preferred expression is long SEK/GBP. In the case of Norway, a Royal Decree on Monetary Policy lowered the Norges Bank inflation target from 2.5 to 2.0 per cent. This followed years of failure to achieve the higher target. The market interpreted this change as hawkish, as it created the scope for tighter - or at least, less loose - policy than was previously expected. The upshot was that the NOK rallied. But again, the market reaction shows evidence of a technical overreaction (Chart I-6). Hence, the tactical opportunity is to stay short the NOK, and our preferred expression is long AUD/NOK. Chart I-6Our Preferred Expression Of Short NOK Is Versus The AUD Financial Markets Are Not Complicated, But They Are Complex The words 'complicated' and 'complex' appear to be interchangeable, but their meanings are quite distinct. The distinction is important because financial markets are not complicated, but they are complex. Something that is complicated is the sum of a large number of separate parts or processes. For example, making a car is complicated. But predicting the performance of financial markets over the medium term - say, a year or longer - is uncomplicated. The philosophy of Investment Reductionism teaches us that investment strategy is not made up of many separate parts or processes. It reduces to just three things: Predicting the evolution of the global economy. Predicting central bank reaction functions. Predicting tail-events: political, economic and financial. For example, this week's lesson in Investment Reductionism is to illustrate that the medium term decision to allocate between emerging market equities and the Eurostoxx600 largely reduces to the prospects for global metal prices (Chart I-7). Chart I-7EM Versus Eurostoxx600 = Metal Prices By contrast, something that is complex is not the sum of its parts, because the parts interact in unpredictable ways. Complexity characterizes the behaviour of financial markets over the short term - say, up to around six months. Therefore, the best way to model the behaviour of any investment over the very short term is to think of it as a complex adaptive system. A complex adaptive system is a system with a large number of mutually interacting agents, which can learn from their interactions and thereby adapt their subsequent behaviour. Examples include traffic flows, crowds in stadiums, and of course financial markets. A crucial property of all such systems is they possess an endogenous tipping point of instability, at which the behaviour undergoes a 'phase-shift'. This is the essence of how we identify likely short-term trend reversals in any investment such as the SEK and the NOK. This week's final trade recommendation uses this idea once again. Poland's equity market has underperformed recently in line with the general underperformance of the emerging market basket - and our underweight in the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx600 is handsomely in profit. However, looking at the market as a complex adaptive system, the extent of Poland's underperformance is overdone (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Extent Of Poland's Underperformance Is Overdone Hence we are taking profit on our underweight in Poland and putting on a short-term countertrend position: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of the report, this week's new trade recommendation is a pair-trade: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. The profit target is 5% with a symmetrical stop loss. Our preferred expression of long SEK is versus the GBP which is already in profit since initiation. 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

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Our confidence in additional significant bank relative price gains has decreased. There is budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation is getting re-established, as we had posited last autumn, and coupled with later cycle dynamics signal that the bank outperformance is getting long in the tooth. Recent Changes Crystalize gains of 6% in the S&P banks index and remove from the high-conviction overweight call list. Put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert. Prefer large caps to small caps (please refer to the May 10th Sector Insight). Table 1 Feature Equities staged a breakout attempt last week and the SPX reclaimed the 50-day moving average, with the energy sector leading the pack. However, the lateral move in place over the past quarter is not over yet as the market is still digesting the February 5th drawdown. Importantly, EPS euphoria cannot last forever and the inevitable profit growth deceleration post the calendar 2018 onetime tax reform fillip is weighing on the market. The 12-month forward EPS growth rate has come down to 15%, and as we move into the back half of 2018 it will continue to glide toward a still impressive 10% (or two times nominal GDP growth), which is where the calendar 2019 estimate currently stands (Chart 1). Following up from last week's 'Til Debt Do Us Part' Special Report, the overall market's (ex-financials and ex-real estate) 'Altman Z-score' is waving a mini yellow flag. Cyclical momentum in this indicator is giving way and the broad market's deteriorating creditworthiness is also, at the margin, anchoring profit growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Chart 2Watching Balance Sheets... Nevertheless, we remain constructive on the broad market from a cyclical 9-12 month horizon as the odds of recession are close to nil, and interpret recent market action as a sign of resiliency. The SPX refuses to give way to the bearish narrative plagued by geopolitical uncertainty/fears and slowing global growth. Chart 3 shows an extremely economically sensitive indicator, lumber, alongside the ISM manufacturing survey. Since 1969 when lumber futures first commenced trading, these two series have been tightly positively correlated. Recently, a rare and steep divergence is visible and our inclination is to expect all-time high lumber prices to arrest the ISM's fall in the coming months. True, lumber prices reflect a NAFTA-related premium and at the current juncture cannot be fully trusted that they are emitting an accurate economic signal. We, thus, resort to another - daily reported - global growth barometer, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The third panel of Chart 3 shows that a wide gap has opened between the ISM manufacturing index and the BDI. If our assessment is correct and this global growth soft patch is transitory, then the ISM will remain squarely clear of the 50 boom/bust line. Taken together, these two economically sensitive high frequency series comprise our Global Trade Indicator which is underscoring that global export growth will pick up in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Finally, on the domestic freight front,1 the composite freight index is also reaccelerating, signaling that domestic demand conditions are firing on all cylinders (fourth panel, Chart 3). Circling back to profit growth, long-term S&P 500 EPS growth expectations have vaulted to the highest level since the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). While in isolation, this measure signals we are in overshoot territory and such breakneck EPS growth is clearly unsustainable, the SPX PEG ratio tells a different story (we divide the 12-month forward price to earnings ratio by the long-term EPS growth rate to arrive at the current reading near 1 on the S&P 500 PEG ratio, Chart 4). Chart 3...But Economy Is Humming Chart 4Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio On this valuation measure the SPX appears cheap. Historically, every time the PEG ratio has sunk to one standard deviation below the mean, at least a reflex rebound ensued. Table 2 summarizes the five most recent iterations we included in the analysis since 1985. While we cannot rule out a steep undershoot, if history at least rhymes, the S&P should be higher in the subsequent 12 months (Chart 5). Chart 5SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed Table 2S&P 500 Yearly Returns* This week we are removing an early cyclical index from our high-conviction call list, locking in handsome profits, and updating a high-beta energy sub-index. Put Banks On Downgrade Watch Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern. We first cautioned last October that banks would shatter their near one-to-one relationship with the 10-year UST yield and re-establish it with the yield curve likely in the back half of 2018 as the Fed would further lift the fed funds rate away from the zero lower bound.2 This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (Chart 6). Charts 7 & 8 show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits of 6% and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Chart 6NIM Trouble? Chart 7Monitoring Shifting... Chart 8...Correlations What would cause us to change our yearlong cyclical constructive view and move to a benchmark allocation, is a lack of relative price outperformance in the next 10-year Treasury yield jump. Crudely put, if banks fail to best the market when the bond market further sells off roughly to 3.25%, as BCA's fixed income strategists expect, we will pull the trigger and downgrade to a neutral stance. Another reason we are likely to become more wary of bank relative performance in the coming quarters is the stage of the business cycle. Importantly, we wanted to test our hypothesis that in the late/later stages of the expansion early cyclicals, banks included, fare poorly. Therefore, at some point we should move away from our sanguine view on this index and not overstay our welcome as the current expansion has become the second longest on record according to the NBER designated recessions. In more detail, what we did to test this hypothesis was to document relative bank performance from when the ISM manufacturing peaked for the cycle until the recession commenced going back to the 1960s (Chart 9). Table 3 aggregates the results using monthly data. What is clear is that if the recession is a financial crisis related recession, then shy away from banks. But, in 4 out of the 7 last cycles dating back to the 1960s, banks outperformed the broad market in the later stages of the business cycle. Chart 9Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Table 3Late Cycle Analysis Nevertheless, breaking down the results in two periods is instructive. One period recalibrates the bank relative returns from the ISM peak until the SPX peak, and the second one from the SPX peak until the recession commences (Table 3). Banks clearly underwhelm 4 out of the 7 iterations as the SPX crests, confirming our negative return hypothesis. Subsequently, as the SPX deflates when the economy heads into recession, relative bank performance significantly improves with the caveat that during financial crises, banks continue to bleed (in an upcoming Special Report we will be performing the same analysis on the GICS1 U.S. equity sectors, stay tuned). Two weeks ago we lifted our peak SPX target to 3200,3 and the implication is that banks' best days have likely passed, if history at least rhymes. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November.4 Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis. We are closely monitoring the yield curve slope and interest rate correlation with bank performance, and if banks refrain from participating in the next leg up in interest rates it will serve as a catalyst to prune exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB. Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. Even year-to-date, oil servicing companies have bested the market by 600bps. The steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance, and BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy still-upbeat crude oil view is a harbinger of even brighter days ahead for this high-beta energy sub sector (Chart 10). While we are exploring our capex upcycle theme via a high-conviction overweight in the broad S&P energy index, oil services companies are also a prime beneficiary of our synchronized global capital outlays upcycle theme. In fact, relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, OPEC 2.0 and $70/bbl oil prices have resulted in a semblance of normality in the E&P space (a key industry client) that has lifted spending budgets (bottom panel, Chart 11). The upshot is that energy services revenues will continue to expand (Chart 11). Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (top and second panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Catch up Phase Chart 11Capex Upcycle... Chart 12...Beneficiary Taking the pulse of oil services industry slack is extremely important for profitability. Our global idle rig proxy is also making a breakout attempt following a massive two year plus retrenchment phase (top panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that energy servicers have only recently exited deflation, that wreaked havoc in the sector's financial metrics. Now as a renormalization period is unfolding with higher underlying commodity prices breathing life into industry new order growth, even a modest pricing power rebound will go a long way in lifting depressed profits. In fact, new orders-to-inventories are in a reflex rebound. While such an exponential rise is unsustainable, firming oil services demand should continue to remove excess slack, a boon for industry selling prices and profits (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Sentiment toward this energy sub-index remains bombed out and there is widespread disbelief that this rebound is sustainable. Rather, the risk of a deflationary relapse has kept investors at bay pushing relative valuations deep into undervalued territory. Both our composite relative Valuation Indicator (VI) and relative price-to-book are hovering near all-time lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). Technicals are not as depressed as the VI reading, with the recent relative share price bounce lifting our relative Technical Indicator to the neutral zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Deflation Is Over Chart 14Unloved And Underowned In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE -NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 The freight transportation services index consists of: For-hire trucking (parcel services are not included); Freight railroad services (including rail-based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars); Inland waterway traffic; Pipeline movements (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas); and Air freight. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Dear Client, This week, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Juan Correa. This piece discusses value investing in the FX space, using purchasing power parity metrics in order to device profitable trading rules for investors. Contrarily to naive uses of PPP, the methods described by Juan provide profitable signals on long-term as well as short-term investment horizons. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature "In our own day, many people have greatly increased their fortunes by carrying to Flanders and France ducats of two, four and ten....on each of which they make a big profit; and they bring merchandise from abroad which is worth little there and much here." - Martin Azpilicueta, Comentorio Resolutario de Usuras, 1556 Purchase Power Parity, or PPP, is perhaps the most basic concept for establishing the fair value of a currency. The theory dates back to 16th century Spain, where a group of theologians witnessed firsthand how a large influx of gold from the New World created a tremendous price imbalance between Spain and neighboring countries, providing traders with an opportunity to make a profit. From their observations, the main axiom of PPP was born: Once converted to a common currency, national price levels should be equal to one another. The theory is an offshoot of the Law of One Price, and simply states that if the above condition does not hold, there exists an arbitrage opportunity. Since its discovery, PPP has become a pillar of international economics, and has been the preferred measure to determine exchange rates for newly established countries. However, the usefulness of PPP to make investment decisions in currency markets remains doubtful. Specifically, academic literature has shown that the speed of convergence of currencies to their implied fair value is extremely slow1 (between 3 and 5 years2), making PPP a poor timing indicator. Moreover, academics have also struggled to find compelling evidence of long-run PPP convergence when including non-U.S. dollar crosses.3 This last point is crucial, as the data shows that many crosses do not revert back to their fair value, even If we consider multi-decade time horizons, and even if we take the average of the crosses for a particular currency to smooth out outliers (Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B). Chart I-1APPP: An Unreliable Fair Value Measure (I) Chart I-1BPPP: An Unreliable Fair Value Measure (I) A good example is EUR/CHF. This cross has been undervalued relative to its PPP value by at least 7% for more than three decades, suggesting there should have been immense upward pressure on this exchange rate. However over this same time frame, EUR/CHF has steadily depreciated by more than 36% (Chart I-2). Any investor using this absolute PPP undervaluation as a signal to buy this cross would have made a mistake, even with a very long time horizon. Chart I-2EUR/CHF: A Deceptive Bargain The PPP Puzzle: Theoretical Considerations Chart I-3The Penn Effect In Action Cases like the one above, where there is a consistent violation of the supposed non-arbitrage axiom, show how PPP can be a misleading indicator, even for long-term investors. While this valuation metric can be useful for some currencies, it cannot be applied in systematic fashion to make buying and selling decisions on the whole universe of investable G10 crosses. The unreliability of PPP is not a novel observation. Economists and investors alike have made numerous attempts to explain why PPP is not binding. Below we discuss the theoretical reasons as to why this is the case, and we review the performance of some of the common solutions used to solve these issues. The Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis The Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis originated from the empirical observation that countries with higher GDP per capita tend to have structurally higher prices (also known as "The Penn Effect") (Chart I-3). This hypothesis argues that this phenomenon occurs because richer countries, which are more productive, tend to have most of their competitive advantage concentrated in the tradable goods sector. In order for wages to equalize across sectors of the economy, non-tradable goods prices rise, making consumer price baskets, which are composed of both tradable and non-tradable goods, structurally higher in more productive countries.4 This theory would suggest that tradable prices should be uniform across countries. Therefore, an obvious solution to account for the Balassa-Samuelson effect would be to use tradable goods to estimate fair value. After all, a non-arbitrage condition can only hold in goods that can be traded. We use Bloomberg PPI-based PPP fair-value estimates to analyze whether assessing equilibria based on producer prices indices (which tend to be composed of highly tradable goods) provides a better fair-value estimate. Disappointingly, PPI-based PPP shows no material improvement in terms of acting as a reliable fair value measure over the PPP of the OECD that encompasses broader price baskets (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B).5 Indeed, multiple currencies still display structural over- or under-valuations over multiple decades.6 Chart I-4ANo Significant Improvement ##br##In Valuation Using PPI (I) Chart I-4BNo Significant Improvement ##br##In Valuation Using PPI (II) The Border Effect Chart I-5The Border Effect In Action Why is it that highly tradable goods like those included in producer price indices can have such different prices in two countries over such a long period of time? A likely answer is transaction costs. Non-arbitrage conditions hold only if transaction costs are absent or minimal. In practice, this is rarely the case. Consider the results from the paper "The Border Effect: Some New Evidence."7 In this paper, Gopinath et al measure wholesale (pre-gross margin, pre-tax) costs of tradable goods from the same retail chain in both the U.S. and Canada. Overall, they find that while the difference between intra-country store costs is negligible, the median difference between Canadian and U.S. stores is nearly 18% (Chart I-5). This effect holds even when adjusting for distance as well as average income around the store. The results are particularly striking considering the U.S. and Canada share a common land border, speak the same language and have an extensive free-trade agreement. Accounting For Distortions: Stable Distribution Strategies Chart I-6Winners And Losers Of PPP Strategies Practitioners tend to have limited data on the degree of distortion affecting the PPP fair value of a currency. A strategy that sidesteps this issue is to buy (or sell) crosses that are undervalued (overvalued) relative to their historical distributions. Such a strategy recognizes that some currencies tend to be structurally overvalued and others tend to be structurally undervalued, for whatever the reason. However, these strategies assume that this overvaluation / undervaluation should be stationary through time.8 Therefore, if a currency is much more overvalued or undervalued than implied by its historical distribution, a selling or buying opportunity exists. We tested these kinds of "Stable Distribution" PPP strategies from the perspective of all G10 countries. Our methodology was the following: We estimated the average deviation of every currency cross from their OECD PPP measures over the first half of our sample (historical mean). We also estimated the standard deviation around this mean (sigma bands). We back tested the following strategy in the second half of our sample: Buy a currency when its disequilibrium to its OECD PPP estimate stands one standard deviation below its average PPP deviation. Hold this position until the currency's deviation from PPP returns to its historical mean. Sell a currency when its disequilibrium to its OECD PPP estimate stands one standard deviation above its average PPP deviation. Hold this position until the currency's deviation from PPP returns to its historical mean. Remain neutral otherwise. The Stable Distribution strategy provided positive returns in our sample of 37 out of the 45 crosses in the G10. However not all currencies performed equally. Crosses containing the British pound or the Swiss Franc did the best, while crosses containing the Japanese yen or Canadian dollar fared the worst (Chart I-6). Currencies where this strategy performed well exhibited a relatively stationary mean deviation from PPP, even if they were chronically overvalued like the Swiss franc (Chart I-7). This allowed the strategy to account for the distortion and provide an attractive return profile. Conversely, the strategy did rather poorly for yen-based investors (Chart I-8). This currency clearly experienced a paradigm shift in its structural valuation. Thus, the assumption that the past is a good predictor of the future failed to materialize, making for an unattractive return profile. Chart I-7CHF: Stable Valuation Chart I-8JPY: Paradigm Shift Please see Appendix C where the performance of the Stable Distribution strategy is presented for other currencies. A Few Words On Relative PPP A great number of PPP models are made using OLS regression on relative inflation rates (relative PPP). Although these kinds of models can be useful and tailored to account for other factors such as productivity or trade dynamics, they make the same assumption of stationarity in the distribution of the deviations of currencies from the Law of One Price as the strategy discussed above. Moreover, different composition in price baskets represent yet another drawback for OLS-based models. For a more detailed discussion on PPP measures, please see Appendix A. To see the performance of relative PPP models, please see Appendix D. Bottom Line: To account for distortions in valuations, investors can buy/sell currencies that are under/overvalued according to historical precedence by assuming the distribution will remain constant. While this strategy has performed well for currencies like the pound and the franc, the assumption of stationarity in valuation has failed to hold for the yen. Rethinking Theory: PPP Rank Is there any way where PPP valuations provide a reliable signal to investors, irrespective of the currency they are based on? We believe so. However, a slight rethink of PPP is required. While it is true there are many idiosyncratic reasons why the non-arbitrage condition of PPP cannot hold, this force should exert some pressure on currencies on average. In other words, when the sample of currencies under investigation is large, the sum of the distortions should tend to even out. We can express this by relaxing the axiom of PPP as follows: Once converted to a common currency, national price levels should, on average, converge. While this may seem like an insignificant change, this relaxed version of the PPP does one thing that absolute PPP does not: it focuses on buying overvalued currencies provided that at the same time more-overvalued currencies are also being sold, and selling undervalued currencies provided that concurrently more undervalued ones are being bought. We tested our relaxed-PPP axiom using the following strategy: Ranking all nine G10 currencies from cheapest to most expensive against our home currency, based on their percentage deviation from the OECD PPP estimate. Of these nine, buying the three most undervalued (or least overvalued) currencies against our home currency. Of these nine, selling the three most overvalued (or least undervalued) currencies against our home currency. Remaining neutral the middle three currencies. Rebalancing the portfolio every month (For clarity Table I-1 shows the steps taken by the strategy from the perspective of a EUR-based investor) Table 1 We call this strategy "PPP Rank." Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B show that the PPP Rank strategy manages to have an attractive return profile regardless of the home currency of the investor. Moreover, the performance of this strategy does not exhibit large drawdowns over our sample.9 Chart I-9APPP Rank: A Robust Value Strategy (I) Chart I-9BPPP Rank: A Robust Value Strategy (II) Another advantage of this strategy is that it does not make assumptions regarding the underlying distribution of a currency's mis-valuation. This makes the strategy's results robust throughout our sample. Nevertheless, its main disadvantage is that its success rests on a well-diversified exposure to all G10 currencies. Therefore, this strategy, like most factor-based methods, goes against investing in a few currency pairs, or having highly concentrated currency exposure. To be sure, the strategy does not claim to solve the PPP puzzle. Instead, we recognize that in practice finding the absolute fair value of a currency may not even be possible. However, this does not prevent investors from reliably generating positive returns by using diversification to implement value strategies in the FX market. Bottom Line: By investing in various currencies at once and ranking them according to their valuation, our PPP Rank strategy provides a way to profit from PPP valuations at an aggregate level in a way that is robust across currencies. Investment Implications What are PPP Rank and the Stable distribution strategies telling us now? Matrix 1 shows the recommendations from the PPP Rank strategy at the current juncture, for investors based in all the G10 countries. Currently, this value-based strategy tends to favor the GBP, the EUR and the JPY while being bearish on the NOK, the CHF and the AUD. These insights confirm our long-term bearish stance on the Swiss Franc10 and long-term bullish stance on the euro.11 As a reminder, this strategy works best with equal currency exposure. Please see Appendix B to see the performance of the strategy as a hedging tool. Matrix 1PPP Rank Recommendation Conversely, out of the top five crosses where the Stable Distribution PPP strategy worked best, no cross currently displays a one standard deviation over- or under-valuation that would signal a buying or selling opportunity (Please see Appendix C to see a ranking of the performance of the stable distribution strategy on all G10 crosses). As a concluding remark, investors must remember that PPP valuations make several assumptions than do not hold in practice, and existing methods to measure PPP equilibrium have numerous limitations. Therefore, caution should be taken when using PPP to make currency decisions. Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Comparison Of Different PPP Measures Table II-1 Appendix B: PPP Rank And International Portfolio Hedging The majority of long-term players in the currency market are asset managers, who must decide whether or not and to what degree they should hedge their currency exposure arising from their positions in foreign markets. Given the long-term nature of PPP, we believe it best to analyze the performance of PPP Rank in the context of international portfolio hedging. Thus, we test whether our PPP Rank strategy adds value to the hedging process of international equity portfolio managers based in five different countries (the U.S, the euro area, Japan, the U.K. and Australia). Our methodology is the following: We hedge the totality of our currency exposure in the markets with the three most overvalued currencies according to PPP. We do not hedge our currency exposure in the markers with the three most undervalued currencies according to PPP. We hedge half of our currency exposure (least-regret hedging) for the middle three currencies. We apply the above strategy to an equally weighted G10 portfolio. Overall, we find that our ranking hedging strategy, applying our relaxed PPP axiom, tends to provide superior returns to all other hedging frameworks for portfolio managers in the U.S., Europe and the U.K. Meanwhile, returns for this strategy place second in Japan and Australia versus the alternatives over our sample (Chart II-1) Chart II-1PPP Rank Vs. Alternatives (I) More importantly, however, our hedging strategy outperforms traditional strategies from a risk-adjusted perspective, regardless of the home currency of the portfolio manager (Chart II-2).12 Another important consideration is the reliability and robustness of the strategy. To measure this, we compare the risk-adjusted returns of the PPP Rank strategy against the alternatives across four windows: 1999-2003, 2004-2008, 2009-2013 and 2014 to present. Chart II-3 shows that our PPP Rank strategy ranks best or second best throughout all windows, no matter where the investor is based. This stands in contrast to the alternatives, whose returns can vary wildly depending on the time frame analyzed. Chart II-2PPP Rank Vs. Alternatives (II) Chart II-3PPP Rank Vs. Alternatives (III) While the PPP Rank strategy is both effective and robust for equity hedging in our sample, it is worth noting that in practice it is not likely that equity investors have equal exposure to all G10 currencies. Therefore we also conducted a sensitivity analysis by using market weights (rebalanced monthly) for each G10 equity market, eliminating some of the currency exposure diversification which stands as the pillar of our strategy. Chart II-4A shows that when the portfolio currency exposure becomes more concentrated, the performance in terms of risk-adjusted returns suffers slightly for Australian and Japanese investors in our sample. However, as Chart II-4B shows, the robustness of the strategy is significantly reduced, with the performance of PPP Rank relative to the alternatives fluctuating more widely, depending on the time period analyzed. It is thus worth noting that the ranking strategy is most appropriate for investors who have diversified currency exposure to many currencies. Chart II-4ASensitivity Analysis Of PPP Rank ##br##Using Market Weights Chart II-4BSensitivity Analysis Of PPP Rank ##br##Using Market Weights Appendix C: Stable Distribution Strategies Chart III-1 - Chart III-8 and Table III-1 Chart III-1U.S. Dollar Chart III-2Euro Chart III-3British Pound Chart III-4Australian Dollar Chart III-5New Zealand Dollar Chart III-6Canadian Dollar Chart III-7Swedish Krona Chart III-8Norwegian Krone Table III-1G10 Crosses Ranked By Risk-Adjusted Returns In Stable Distribution Strategy Appendix D: Relative PPP We test Relative PPP strategies from the perspective of all G10 countries. Our methodology is the following: We regress the currency against relative PPI inflation. We estimate the regression coefficients for the first half of our sample. We also estimate the standard deviation around the fair value. We back test the following strategy in the second half of our sample: Buying a currency when it is undervalued by one standard deviation according to the regression model, and holding this position until the currency PPP deviation returns to its model implied fair value. Selling a currency when it is overvalued by one standard deviation according to the regression model, and holding this position until the currency PPP deviation returns to its model implied fair value. Remain neutral otherwise. Chart IV-1ARegression Based Relative PPP (I) Chart IV-1BRegression Based Relative PPP (I) 1 These results are also contentious. Most evidence of PPP holding in the long run is based on rejecting the null hypothesis of a unit root in the real exchange rate (in other words, the real exchange rate is stationary throughout time). However this is a necessary but not sufficient condition, as one would have to know that the level at which the real exchange rate is reverting to is in fact the PPP equilibrium. For more details please see Taylor, Alan M., and Mark P. Taylor. "The Purchase Power Parity Debate". Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 18, no.4, fall 2014, pp. 135-158. 2 Rogoff, Kenneth. "The Purchase Power Parity Puzzle". Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 34, no.2, June 1996, pp.647-668. 3 O'Connell, Paul G.J., The Overvaluation of PPP (April 1, 1996). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4125 4 While the Penn Effect is an empirical fact, the validity of the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis as an explanation for it continues to be disputed. Please see Gubler, Mathias and Cristoph Sax (2016). The Balassa-Samuelson Effect Reversed: New Evidence from OECD Countries. SNB Working Papers and Choudhri, Ehsan U. and Lawrence L. Schembri (2009). Productivity, the Terms of Trade, and the Real Exchange Rate: The Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis Revisited. Bank of Canada Working Papers 5 Although there is data from 1986 for this measure, Bloomberg uses a long-run averaging method of data from 1986 to 2000 to estimate equilibrium. Therefore we only look at the out-of-sample performance of this measure since 2000. 6 While PPI-based PPP fair value estimates are theoretically more appropriate in establishing fair value, the existing measures of PPI-based fair value have several drawbacks. For a comparison between different fair value measures please see Appendix A. 7 Gopinath, G., Gourinchas, P., Hsieh, C., & Li, N.L. (2009). Estimating the Border Effect: Some New Evidence. 8 This methodology fits most academic research supporting the existence of PPP (i.e. the real exchange rate is stationary.) 9 The success of this strategy suggest that PPP might hold loosely at a global level. 10 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan," dated March 23, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 12 It is important to remember that investors based in two different currencies can have different hedged returns even when investing in the same portfolio. This is because it is impossible to perfectly hedge variable income assets such as equities. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Chart 1Interest Rate Expectations Last week the Federal Reserve made some necessary tweaks to the language in its statement. Namely, with the year-over-year core PCE deflator now up to 1.88%, the Fed was forced to upgrade its assessment of inflation and note that it has "moved close" to the 2 percent target. To assuage concern that such a change might lead to a quicker pace of rate hikes, the statement also emphasized that the inflation target is "symmetric" and noted that its policy of "gradual increases in the federal funds rate" will continue. While the recent increase in inflation is not sufficient to nudge the Fed away from "gradualism", the more important observation is that yields are still not high enough to discount the Fed's gradual approach (Chart 1). The Fed has tightened policy once per quarter since December 2016, tapering asset purchases in place of a rate hike in September 2017. It should be obvious that, absent an economic shock, one rate hike per quarter is the Fed's definition of "gradual". And yet, the market is still priced for barely more than two hikes for the balance of 2018, and not even two rate hikes for all of 2019! Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance until the market comes to grips with the Fed's gradualism. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -77 bps. The Corporate index option-adjusted spread tightened somewhat in the first half of April, but widened anew during the past couple of weeks and recently made a new high for the year. Despite this sell-off, valuation remains expensive for investment grade corporates. The 12-month breakeven spread for an A-rated bond has only been tighter 27% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). The same measure for a Baa-rated bond has only been tighter 28% of the time. We are preparing to cyclically scale back our corporate bond exposure, and will start the process once TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range, signaling that monetary conditions are sufficiently restrictive. Our target range is 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Those rates currently sit at 2.16% and 2.23%, respectively. In a recent report we noted that corporate bond excess returns fall sharply once the 2/10 Treasury yield curve flattens to below 50 bps, though they typically remain positive until the curve actually inverts.1 The 2/10 Treasury slope currently sits at 45 bps. That same report also notes that while the outlook for corporate revenue growth is strong, rising employee compensation costs will likely soon put a dent in profit margins and cause gross leverage to resume its uptrend (panel 4). This will apply further widening pressure to spreads later in the year. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 102 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 16 bps on the month, and currently sits at 343 bps. The 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate moved higher for the second consecutive month, hitting 3.92% in March. Moody's baseline forecast still calls for it to fall to 1.7% by March of next year. Based on Moody's default rate projection and our estimate of the recovery rate, we forecast High-Yield default losses of 0.85% for the next 12 months. This translates to a 12-month excess return of 257 bps for the High-Yield index versus Treasuries, assuming an unchanged junk spread (Chart 3). One hundred basis points of spread widening would lead to an excess return of -140 bps during this time horizon, and 100 bps of spread tightening would lead to an excess return of +654 bps. However, such a large spread tightening is almost certainly over-optimistic. As inflation continues to rise and the Fed applies the brakes, a floor will likely remain under the VIX index of implied equity volatility and this will prevent junk spreads from recovering their cyclical lows (top panel). This would be consistent with behavior typically seen late in the cycle, once the 2/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps.2 MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 4 bps on the month, split between a 1 bp tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 3 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). While mortgages are no longer excessively cheap compared to corporate credit (Chart 4), we still see limited potential for spread widening during the next 6-12 months. Rising interest rates should serve to limit mortgage refinancing, and muted refis are closely linked to tight MBS spreads (bottom panel). We also view extension risk as relatively limited for conventional 30-year MBS. Using a model of excess MBS returns that we introduced in February, we estimate that despite the 25 bps increase in duration-matched Treasury yields that occurred in April, extension risk trimmed only 2 bps off monthly excess returns.3 Our excess return Bond Map also shows that conventional 30-year MBS require far fewer days of average spread tightening to earn 100 bps of excess return than most other Aaa-rated structured products (Non-Agency Aaa-rated CMBS being the exception), although they are also more likely to deliver losses. But given the benign refinancing back-drop, we remain reasonably positive on the sector.4 Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -7 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 37 bps on the month, while Foreign Agencies underperformed by 15 bps and Domestic Agencies underperformed by 14 bps. Local Authorities delivered 14 bps of outperformance and Supranationals bested duration-equivalent Treasuries by 5 bps. Dollar strength hurt the performance of Sovereign debt last month, and relative valuation continues to show that Sovereigns are expensive relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 5). We remain underweight USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Conversely, Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities continue to offer very attractive spreads, especially considering the duration and spread volatility characteristics of those sectors. Our excess return Bond Map shows that both sectors offer a superior risk/reward trade-off than the Barclays Aggregate and almost all of its components.5 The large presence of state-owned energy companies in the Foreign Agency sector means it should also benefit from higher oil prices in the coming months. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 65 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 94 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined 2% in April as fund inflows returned to the sector (Chart 6). Persistently low visible supply is also contributing to the strong technical environment for yield ratios. The tax-adjusted yield for a 10-year municipal bond is now about 46 bps below the yield offered by an equivalent-duration corporate bond. As we have shown in prior research, investors typically get an opportunity to shift out of corporates and into munis at a positive spread differential before the end of the cycle.6 We will await this more attractive entry point before aggressively shifting our allocation in favor of munis. In a recent report we noted that state and local governments are still working to repair their budgets.7 More states enacted tax increases than decreases in fiscal year 2018 and the projected nominal budget increase across all states is a paltry 2.3%. Fortunately, our Municipal Health Monitor indicates that the hard work is paying off, and suggests that ratings upgrades should continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve rose considerably in April, steepening a touch out to the 5-year maturity point and flattening thereafter. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 1 basis point in April, and currently sits at 45 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 34 bps. The trade-off between the pace of Fed rate hikes on the one hand, and the re-anchoring of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates on the other will dictate the slope of the yield curve during the next six months. With the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate at 2.16%, it remains slightly below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that is consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations. It will be difficult for the yield curve to flatten aggressively until that target is met. After that, curve flattening becomes much more likely. We continue to recommend a position in the 5-year bullet versus the duration-matched 2/10 barbell, primarily due to extremely attractive starting valuation. Our model suggests that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for 17 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). With long-maturity TIPS breakevens still below target, we think that is too high a bar. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 93 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 161 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.16%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 6 bps and currently sits at 2.23%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.8 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. If the recent trend in inflation continues, then this re-anchoring will occur relatively soon. The annualized 6-month rate of change in the trimmed mean PCE deflator has already returned to the Fed's target, and the annual rate of change jumped from 1.71% to 1.77% in March (Chart 8). Pipeline measures of inflation pressure also continue to strengthen. Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator is in a strong uptrend and the prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey is closing in on 80, a level last seen in 2011 (panel 4). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -6 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 4 bps on the month and now stands at 40 bps, 7 bps above its pre-crisis low. Our recently introduced excess return Bond Map shows that both Aaa-rated credit card and Aaa-rated auto loan ABS exhibit lower risk and less potential for gains than the Barclays Aggregate index.9 It also confirms that credit card ABS are somewhat more attractive than auto loan ABS, offering approximately the same potential for excess return with less risk. Compared to other fixed income sectors, Aaa-rated ABS offer greater potential return and higher risk than Agency CMBS, Domestic Agencies and Supranationals. But the ABS sector also has a less attractive risk/reward profile than the Foreign Agency, Local Authority and Investment grade corporate sectors. Fundamentally, while consumer delinquencies remain low, they are heading higher alongside a rising household debt service coverage ratio (Chart 9). The persistent (though mild) deterioration in credit quality causes us to maintain a neutral allocation to the sector, despite reasonably attractive valuations. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 69 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean. Our excess return Bond Map shows that Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS offer greater potential reward, but also greater risk, than the majority of other high-rated spread products. The exception is conventional 30-year Agency MBS, which offer a less attractive risk/reward trade-off.10 That being said, the fundamental picture for commercial real estate is less appealing than on the residential side. CMBS spreads continue to diverge from commercial property prices (Chart 10). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread was flat on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. According to our Bond Map, Agency CMBS offer greater potential excess return and less risk than both the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors. We continue to view the Agency CMBS space as an attractive low-risk spread sector. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.70%. The drop in the model's fair value stems from a decline in the global PMI to 53.5 from a recent peak of 54.5. While global growth has undoubtedly lost momentum in recent months, we also suspect that our 2-factor model is finally breaking down. The 2-factor model does not contain a variable to capture the degree of resource utilization in the economy. Logically, as slack dissipates in the economy and inflationary pressures mount, then the same level of global growth should be associated with a higher Treasury yield, all else equal. This means that at some point, as we approach the end of the cycle, the model will break down and consistently produce fair value readings that are too low. We suspect that we may be reaching this point. When we augment our model with an additional variable to measure the degree of resource utilization, in this case the employment-to-population ratio, we find that the new model projects a fair value of 3.28% for the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 11). This 3-factor model would not have worked as well as our 2-factor model during the zero-lower bound period, as can be seen by looking at how rolling regression betas from each of the three variables moved sharply following the recession (bottom three panels). However, as we move further away from the zero-lower bound we expect the regression coefficients to return to pre-crisis levels, meaning that it will be important to monitor both trends in global growth and the amount of resource slack in the economy. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For details on the Bond Map please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR", dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a tradeable reversal in yields. The trade-weighted euro has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. We have a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Feature Entering the fifth month of the year, one puzzle for investors is the conflicting messages coming from banks and bonds. While banks' relative performance is close to its 2018 low, bond yields are not far from their year-to-date high (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekBanks Or Bonds: Which One Is Right? This poses a puzzle because the performances of banks and bond yields are usually joined at the hip. The underperformance of the economically sensitive banks would suggest that global growth is decelerating, whereas the performance of bond yields would suggest that global activity is holding up well. Which one is right? The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Looking at the other classically cyclical sectors, the mystery seems to deepen. Industrials and basic materials are also in very clear downtrends this year, which corroborates the message from the banks. But the oil and gas sector is close to a year high, which corroborates the message from bond yields (Charts I-2-I-4). Chart I-2Industrials Have Underperformed... Chart I-3...And Basic Materials Have Underperformed Chart I-4...But Oil And Gas Has Outperformed... The conflicting messages from banks, basic materials and industrials on one side and bond yields and oil and gas equities on the other side reflect the disconnect between non-oil commodity prices which have drifted lower this year and oil prices which have moved sharply higher (Chart I-5). This disconnect, resulting from differing supply dynamics in the different commodity markets, points us to a likely solution to our puzzle. Chart I-5...Because Oil Has Disconnected ##br##From Other Commodities The classically cyclical sectors are taking their cue from global growth and industrial activity, which does appear to be losing momentum. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. In contrast, bond yields are taking their cue from the oil price, given its major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and thereby on central bank reaction functions. Based on previous mini-cycles, we can confidently say that mini-downswing phases last at least six to eight months and that the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. In this regard, the apparent disconnect between decelerating activity and un-budging bond yields risks extending this mini-downswing phase. Therefore, for the next few months, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. This sector strategy necessarily impacts regional allocation as explained in the next section. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Even More Investment Reductionism Imagine a world in which all the global commodity firms decided to get their stock market listings in London; all the global financials decided to list on euro area bourses; all the major tech companies listed in New York; and all the industrials listed in Tokyo. Clearly, each major stock market would just be a play on its underlying global sector and nothing more. Our imagined world is an exaggeration, but it does illustrate an important truth. A quarter of the market capitalisation of each major stock market is in one dominant sector, and this gives each equity index its defining fingerprint: for the FTSE100 it is commodity firms; for the Eurostoxx50 it is financials; for the S&P500 it is technology; and for the Nikkei225 it is industrials (Table I-1). Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Defining Fingerprint There is another important factor to consider: the currency. A global oil company like BP receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, BP's global business is currency neutral. But BP's stock price is quoted in pounds. This means that if the pound strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. So the currency is the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market, albeit it is an inverse relationship: a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak currency helps it. The upshot is that the defining fingerprints for the major indexes turn out to be: FTSE100: global commodity shares expressed in pounds. Eurostoxx50: global banks expressed in euros. S&P500: global technology expressed in dollars. Nikkei225: global industrials expressed in yen. And that's pretty much all you need to know for regional equity allocation! The charts in this report should leave you in no doubt. True to our Investment Reductionism philosophy, the relative performance of the regional equity indexes just reduces to their defining fingerprints: FTSE100 versus S&P500 reduces to global commodity companies in pounds versus global tech companies in dollars, Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 reduces to global banks in euros versus global industrials in yen. And so on (Charts I-6-I-11). Chart I-6FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-7FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Commodity ##br##Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-8FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In ##br##Euros Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-10Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In##br## Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-11S&P 500 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Tech In ##br##Dollars Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Right Way To Invest In The 21st Century One important implication of Investment Reductionism is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, banks and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer better value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, currency effects, and step changes in sector valuations, we offer some strong advice on how to sequence the investment process: 1. Make your asset class decision at a global level. This is because asset classes tend to move as global entities, not regional entities. And also because at a global level, asset class valuation comparisons are less distorted by sector and currency effects. 2. Make your sector decisions. Given that the companies that dominate European (and all major) indexes are multinationals, the sector decision should be based on the direction of the global economy. 3. Make your currency decisions. 4. You do not need to make any more major decisions! The main regional equity allocation, country allocation and value/growth allocation just drop out from the sector and currency decision. With the global 6-month credit impulse now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase (Chart I-12), the classically cyclical sectors are likely to continue underperforming for the next few months; the rise in bond yields faces resistance; and the euro - at least on a trade-weighted basis - has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. Chart I-12The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Finally, in terms of regional equity allocation, Investment Reductionism implies a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* In addition to the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, fractal analysis finds that the outperformance of Oil and Gas relative to other commodity equities is technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to underweight euro area Oil and Gas versus global Basic Materials. Set a profit target of 5%, with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long USD/ZAR hit its 6% profit target, and is now closed. This leaves us with five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2018. There are no significant changes in the model's allocation this month, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD, %) As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 20 bps in April, largely driven by the Level 2 model which outperformed by 44 bps while the Level 1 model outperformed only by 2 bps. Since going live, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World by 156 bps, due to the 493 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model which allocates funds among 11 non-U.S. countries. The Level 1 model (which allocates funds between U.S. and the non-U.S.) is on par with the MSCI world benchmark.Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Text below For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2018. For the third consecutive month, the model maintains a defensive positioning generating an alpha of 60 bps for the month of April. Following the end of trade threats (for now), the growth component of the model has stabilized. But, overall the model maintains the same weights from last month with an aggregate tilt of 1.3% towards defensive sectors. Energy remains the only cyclical sector with an overweight on the back of favorable valuations and improving momentum. Among defensive sectors, utilities maintains a large overweight of 5% on the back of better momentum. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com