Developed Countries

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

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

Underweight The S&P cable & satellite index was under intense pressure last week as the quarterly release of subscriber churn numbers for the constituent companies came out worse than expected. In particular, CHTR saw its stock fall by nearly 12% when it reported a subscriber loss nearly triple what analysts had forecast. Cord cutting is far from a new theme and investors have grown accustomed to subscriber losses, though the trend clearly appears to be accelerating. This is in spite of price inflation, which had been the savior of cable & satellite P&L's last year, falling off a cliff (bottom panel). The logical conclusion is to expect continued top line declines and margin contraction amplifying the downward trend for sector earnings. With the broad market posting prime time earnings, the S&P cable & satellite index should be moving to an unappealing slot; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the cable & satellite index are BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.

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

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

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

This week we are raising our cyclical peak SPX target to 3,200. We derive this target via three methodologies: a traditional dividend discount model (DDM), EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and forward equilibrium equity risk premium (ERP) analysis, and we have included these valuations in the table below. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details on our analysis and, if you would like to receive the excel spreadsheet with the three models so you can tweak our inputs/assumptions, please click here.

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

Highlights Duration: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). ECB: The ECB has started to take notice of the latest batch of softening euro area economic data. Yet it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases by year-end. Canada: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations One of our key investment themes for 2018 has been that economic growth, monetary policies and bond yields would be far less correlated between countries than was seen in 2017. This would create cross-country fixed income trading and investment opportunities that were much harder to come by last year. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finally reaching the 3% level last week, that story looks to be playing out. Yields are going up elsewhere, but nothing like what is happening in the U.S., where growth remains firm compared to the string of negative data surprises seen in other countries (Chart of the Week). This theme of divergence can also be seen in the recent actions and comments from central bankers. Officials at the U.S. Federal Reserve have continued to signal, with increasing conviction, that additional rate hikes will be needed later this year (although not at this week's FOMC meeting). This is to be expected given that not only is U.S. growth holding up well (Q1 real GDP growth "only" slowed to an above-potential pace of 2.3%), but both core PCE inflation and the Wages & Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index are accelerating at a marginal pace not seen since the 2008 crisis (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekU.S. Economy Outperforming,##BR##USTs Underperforming Chart 2No Reason For The Fed##BR##To Turn Less Hawkish At the same time, policymakers in other major developed countries have turned somewhat more cautious: The Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced that it will no longer provide a specific date when it expects inflation to reach its target The European Central Bank (ECB) took the highly unusual step of holding a monetary policy meeting last week without actually discussing the monetary policy outlook, according to ECB President Mario Draghi Bank of England (BoE) Governor Mark Carney dampened expectations of a rate hike in May that was nearly fully discounted by markets The Bank of Canada (BoC), which had already delivered several rate hikes when inflation was below its 2% target, chose to keep rates on hold despite inflation finally breaching 2% Sweden's Riksbank pushed out the expected timing of its next rate hike (yet again) to the end of 2018, even with inflation now at target With global growth losing some momentum, it is no surprise that policymakers are trying to not sound too hawkish, which could trigger an unwelcome decline in inflation expectations. Here again, divergences between countries have opened up. Rising oil prices are translating into higher market-based inflation expectations in countries like the U.S. and Canada where growth is still above-potential and leading economic indicators are rising (Chart 3). This is not the case in places like the U.K., Australia and Japan where growth is sluggish, leading indicators are slowing, but with markets still pricing in interest rate increases over the next year (Chart 4). This divergence is a critical underpinning of our current recommended country allocation within government bond markets - overweighting the U.K., Australia and Japan where tighter monetary policy will be difficult to achieve; while underweighting the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes are still in the cards. Chart 3Shifting Oil/Inflation Correlation... Chart 4...In Countries Where Growth Is Slowing The European Duration Call Gets A Bit Trickier The evidence on the euro area is a bit less conclusive on this front, however. The OECD's leading economic indicator has only dipped modestly from its recent peak, and the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has not broken down. Draghi stated in his press conference following last week's policy meeting that the ECB Governing Council was focused on "very important" current euro area economic data that had clearly lost momentum in the first quarter of this year. He noted that there were many one-off factors that could have caused the softer growth (weather, labor strikes, the timing of holidays), but that the slump was very broad-based and hit almost all euro area countries. This makes the next few months of data critical to determine the ECB's next policy move, which could be an announcement of a tapering of its asset purchases when the current program ends in September. From our perspective, the sluggish Q1 euro area economic performance looks to be driven by a major slowing of export growth. Industrial confidence remains at a high level and growth in retail sales volumes has remained stable since the middle of 2017 (Chart 5). Yet the annual growth rate of total euro area exports has slumped to less than 3%, with exports to Asia now contracting on a year-over-year basis (bottom two panels). If the export slump continues in the coming months, this could begin to impact hiring activity across the euro area. A rise in unemployment would definitely change the ECB's calculus in altering its policy stance. At the moment, the Governing Council can look at a steadily declining overall euro area unemployment rate - which is approaching the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU - combined with moderate increases in core HICP inflation, wage growth and inflation expectations, as confirmation that trends are still broadly following the path laid out in its latest economic projections (Chart 6). Chart 5An Export-Led Cooling##BR##Of Euro Area Growth Chart 6ECB Will Not Lift Rates Until##BR##Inflation Expectations Move Back To 2% The ECB has made it clear that it views a tapering of its asset purchases and any subsequent interest rate hikes as separate policy decisions. The hurdle to end the bond purchases is much lower than it is for raising interest rates. On the former, as long as unemployment and inflation continue to evolve along the lines of the ECB's projections, then a full tapering of bond purchases will occur by year-end (with an announcement occurring at either of the June or July ECB meetings). On the latter, it will take inflation expectations (as measured by the 5-year EUR CPI swap, 5-years forward) rising back above 2% for the ECB to feel confident that rate increases will be necessary, as was the case during the mid-2000s tightening cycle and the 2011 mini-cycle (bottom panel). For now, we are maintaining our moderate underweight stance on euro area government debt. Looking ahead, we will be watching the correlation between oil prices denominated in euros and inflation expectations, as well as the development of leading economic indicators in the euro area. If the Q1 growth slump widens into a broader downturn, then the ECB could be forced to revise its economic projections lower and continue with the asset purchases into 2019. While that is not our base case scenario, such a development would force us to reconsider our stance on euro area debt. Bottom Line: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). In Europe, it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases later this year. Canada: Still On Track For More Hikes This Year The BoC has been sending more cautious signals of late regarding its next policy moves, after delivering 75bps of rate hikes since last summer. Some of this simply reflects a more measured tone taken by other central banks in response to signs of global growth losing some momentum, as discussed earlier. Yet in the case of Canada, it is difficult to make a credible case that the central bank should not continue its rate hiking cycle, particularly with inflation now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Upside Risks To Canadian Growth Versus BoC Projections Yes, the Canadian economy has lost some of the rapid upward momentum seen in 2016 and 2017, led mostly by weakness in exports which are now contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). This was focused in aircraft, transportation equipment, and energy products. The latter is due to poor weather conditions and transportation bottlenecks involved in getting oil out of Alberta rather than a sign of weakening demand for Canadian oil. The BoC did take a more cautious view on exports in the latest set of economic projections presented in the April Monetary Policy Report (MPR). The central bank now expects real exports to be stagnant in 2018, downgrading the expected contribution to real GDP growth to zero from the +0.6 percentage points presented in the January MPR. This was, by far, the biggest downgrade to any of the GDP growth components in the BoC's forecast, and was main reason why the BoC downgraded its overall 2018 real GDP growth projection to 2.0% from 2.2%. Yet at the same time, the BoC actually upgraded its global growth projection to 3.8% from the 3.6% figure in the January MPR. We suspect that the downgrade to the export contribution to expected 2018 growth was the BoC trying to inject some room for error in its growth forecasts for any negative outcome in the current round of NAFTA trade negotiations with the U.S. and Mexico. Otherwise, it makes no sense to have such a large downgrade without becoming more pessimistic on global growth. Our Geopolitical strategists are now much more optimistic that a NAFTA deal will be reached, rather than having the U.S. exit the agreement as President Trump has threatened. If that happens, the BoC's growth projections may end up being too low. We can see a similar level of "excessive cautiousness" with regards to the BoC's assessment of the Canadian labor market and the outlook for consumption. Consumer spending has also cooled off a bit from very robust levels, although an unusually long and harsh winter likely played a large role there, as evidenced by the suspiciously large plunge in retail sales growth (Chart 8). The fundamental underpinnings for Canadian consumption still look solid, though. Chart 7Canadian Economy Holding Up Well,##BR##Despite Weak Exports Chart 8Solid Income Fundamentals##BR##For The Canadian Consumer Consumer confidence remains near cyclical highs. Wage growth currently sits at 3.2% in nominal terms and 1.5% in real terms. The BoC noted in its Spring Business Outlook Survey that wage pressures are increasing due to greater competition in the labor market (3rd panel) and, to a lesser extent, recent minimum wage increases. The BoC noted in the April MPR that wages were growing "somewhat below what would be expected were the economy operating with no excess labor." Yet that argument appears overly pessimistic - the unemployment rate is currently 0.7 percentage points below the OECD's NAIRU estimate, at a time when nominal wages are growing in excess of 3%. Again, there is a greater chance that the BoC will end up surprised by how strong Canadian wage growth will turn out over the next 6-12 months. Even the persistent structural problems of very high Canadian household debt levels and overheated house prices appear less of an issue at the moment. The household debt/GDP ratio has stabilized as growth in mortgage debt has decelerated since mid-2017 - an outcome that can be attributed to rising mortgage rates, tighter lending standards on mortgage lending and poor housing affordability in the major cities (Chart 9). Meanwhile, the supply side of the housing market is finally improving with housing starts now back to pre-recession levels. National house price inflation has cooled from the overheated 15% growth rates to a more "normal" pace around 5%, according to data from Terranet. There will be a long-term day of reckoning for the highly-indebted Canadian homeowner during the next recession. In the near term, however, the combination of rising supply, lower demand and softer house prices suggest that the Canadian housing market is trending in a direction of becoming less imbalanced. The BoC took note of these developments in the April MPR, using much less cautious language in describing the risk to the inflation outlook from household debt and overheated housing markets. The outlook for Canadian business investment also has the potential to give an upside surprise to the BoC. The Spring Business Outlook Survey showed that firms' capital spending intentions remain very strong (Chart 10), a fact confirmed by the robust growth in import volumes of machinery & equipment (middle panel). Finally, the overall financial condition for Canadian companies is in good shape, according to our new Canadian Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) that was introduced last week.1 The CHM correlates strongly with the overall Business Outlook Survey Indicator (bottom panel), which suggests that the cyclical improvement in the financial health of Canadian companies will support capital spending in the coming quarters - especially if the uncertainty over the NAFTA negotiations fades away. Chart 9A Better Supply/Demand Balance##BR##In Canadian Housing? Chart 10Canadian Capex##BR##Is In Good Shape The BoC Will Be Surprised By Canadian Inflation, Too Chart 11Inflation Now Above The BoC's 2% Target With the economy likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace in the next 6-12 months, the current uptrend in inflation is should continue. Headline CPI inflation is already above the 2% target and core inflation is right at target (Chart 11). The BoC is forecasting that CPI inflation will only remain modestly above 2% until the end of 2018, and will return back to 2% in 2019. Yet there is essentially no spare capacity left in the Canadian economy, based on output gap estimates of both the BoC and International Monetary Fund (IMF). The BoC has slightly revised its projection for the Q1 2018 output gap, leaving it somewhat wider than the previous forecasts due to positive revisions of potential GDP growth (now 1.8% from 1.6% in the January MPR, based on a faster pace of trend labor productivity). These are small changes, however, and real GDP growth is likely to be faster than the BoC is projecting in 2018. Market-based inflation expectations have been steadily rising along with the increase in global energy prices (bottom panel), and we continue to expect inflation breakevens to widen over the balance of 2018. BoC Will Not Disappoint Market Expectations On Rate Hikes The markets are currently discounting a similar pace of rate hikes in Canada and the U.S. over the next year, according to pricing in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets (Chart 12). The BoC's estimate of the neutral policy rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%, which is well above the current policy rate of 1.25%. The OIS market is discounting 75bps of hikes over the twelve months, which would take the policy rate to 2% - still a below-neutral, accommodative level for an economy that is already at full employment and where inflation has risen back to the BoC's target. We expect the BoC to continue to follow its typical pattern of following moves by the Fed with a lag. This is a sensible strategy given how exposed Canadian growth is to U.S. growth through exports, and also given how responsive the Canadian dollar is to the expected rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada. Given our view that the Fed will deliver at least another 50bps of rate hikes over the course of 2018, with the potential for more if inflation continues to accelerate without any growth slowdown, the BoC will likely deliver on the rate hikes currently discounted by markets. This is the main reason why we are maintaining our underweight stance on Canadian Government bonds (bottom panel). The BoC has a much higher potential to actually hike rates by at least as much as the market is expecting, which is not the case in every other developed market country except the U.S., where we are also underweight. This week, however, we are stopping ourselves out of our recommended Tactical Overlay trade in the Canadian BAX interest rate futures curve (long the Dec/18 contract versus the June/18 contract). We introduced that trade back in January, positioning for more rapid BoC rate hikes in the latter half of 2018 that would flatten the BAX futures curve. The recent dovish turn by the BoC has resulted in a steepening of the BAX futures curve, however, and we are stopping ourselves out at a modest loss of -0.12% (Chart 13). Chart 12Stay Underweight##BR##Canadian Government Debt Chart 13We Are Stopped Out Of##BR##Our BAX Futures Curve Trade Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks", dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.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

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