Developed Countries

Highlights Trade wars have captured investors' imaginations, but slowing global growth is a more immediate risk for both asset prices and exchange rates. As reflationary forces ebb, slow global growth will help the dollar stage a rally. EUR/USD and GBP/USD could decline over the next two quarters. We are selling EUR/CHF. The AUD has more downside. It is too early to close short AUD/NZD or AUD/JPY. Short EUR/CAD with a first target at 1.44. Feature The growing trade skirmish between China and the U.S. has been blamed for much of the movements in risk assets this year. We do not deny that this has been a very important factor determining the price action of all assets globally; after all, market participants are trying to price in the probability that global supply chains as we currently know them will be forever impaired. If this were to happen, global growth and profits would suffer considerably. This warrants a risk premium, one that is currently being estimated by the market.1 As we have written in recent weeks, this will be a stop-and-go pattern, and behind-the-scene negotiations between China and the U.S. will remain intense until June, when the U.S. tariffs are in fact implemented. However, trade wars are not the only force impacting asset returns today. Global asset prices are also slowly adjusting to a world where reflation is ebbing and where growth may be dipping from its heightened state. This week, we examine the role of liquidity and how it is affecting growth,2 and the implications for various currency pairs. From Reflation To Less Growth Through most of 2016 and 2017, risk assets, EM plays, commodity prices and growth greatly benefited from a wave of global reflation implemented by monetary and fiscal authorities around the world in the wake of a market meltdown that culminated in January 2016. A great victim of this reflationary effort was the U.S. dollar. Once global growth and inflation perked up, the dollar sold off. The U.S. economy is not as levered to global growth as the rest of the world is, thus investors were attracted by greater shift in expected returns outside the U.S. than in the U.S. But how is this reflation story faring today? Global monetary policy is not as supportive as it once was as central banks are not adding to global base money as forcefully as before. For example, the Federal Reserve has begun the rundown of its balance sheet, and the real fed funds rate is closing in on the Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate; the European Central Bank has begun tapering it asset purchases, the European shadow policy rate has increased by 400 basis points; and the Bank of Japan has not hit its JGB target of JPY80 trillion of purchases since mid-2016. Even the Swiss National Bank has not seen any increase in its sight deposits since mid-2017. We like to use excess money growth to measure the impact of these changes in base money growth. Excess money supply growth is measured as the difference between broad money supply growth and money demand as approximated by loan growth. As base money and deposits become scarcer in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks deteriorates. This deprives them of the necessary fuel to generate further loan growth down the road. Chart I-1 not only shows that excess money in the U.S., euro area and Japan has been decelerating sharply in recent months, but also that this decline points toward slowing global industrial activity, widening junk spreads and decline EM stock prices. Beyond quantity-based measures of liquidity, price-based measures are sending a similar signal. The widening in the LIBOR-OIS spread has now been well documented. It is true that technical factors such as the issuance of T-bills by the Treasury and the progressive move away from LIBOR as a key benchmark for the pricing of loans partly explain this phenomenon. However, this development is now spreading outside the U.S., with Australia in particular experiencing some especially sharp widening in the spread between deposit rates and the OIS. In fact, the LIBOR-OIS spread for the G-10 as a whole is now at its widest since 2012 (Chart I-2). This also portends a situation where liquidity is becoming scarcer than it once was. Chart I-1Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions Chart I-2Price Of Liquidity Is Increasing Growth is responding to these dynamics, and the softening in PMIs around the world was in full display this week. Interestingly, two bellwethers of global growth are showing especially clear signs of a slowing.3 In Korea, exports have greatly decelerated, industrial production is contracting and PMIs are well below 50 (Chart I-3). Taiwan is also showing some signs of weakness, as exports and export orders are both slowing sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Korea: A Key Global Bellweather Is Slowing Chart I-4Taiwan Echoes Korea's Message This message is also being relayed by the Japanese economy. Japan's exports to Asia have been slowing sharply as well. As Chart I-5 illustrates, weak Japanese shipments to Asia correlate closely with a weak AUD/JPY, weak EM stock prices and widening junk spreads, suggesting that these specific shipments capture systematic developments behind global growth. Key growth-sensitive currencies are flashing a similar signal. As the top panel of Chart I-6 shows, NZD/JPY has historically rolled over and declined ahead of recessions, growth slowdowns or EM crashes. It has clearly weakened for eight months now. Meanwhile, the bottom panel of Chart I-6 shows the Swedish krona versus the euro. This cross is also a good leading indicator of global growth, and it is clearly pointing south. Chart I-5Japanese Exports Point To A Malaise Chart I-6NZD/JPY And EUR/SEK: Confirming The Risks Finally, one of our favorite gauges to measure the impact of reflation has substantially weakened: the combination of global growth and inflation surprises. This indicator clearly shows that after a massive upsurge in reflationary forces over the past two years, reflation is now waning (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Economic Surprises Are Declining If reflation is about pushing growth and prices upward, removing stimulus could have the opposite impact. While it is clear that global growth is slowing, what about inflation? We do not think that global inflation is set to slow significantly: global growth is unlikely to move back below trend, and the U.S. is experiencing increasingly potent domestic inflationary pressures supercharged by fiscal profligacy. That being said, the uptrend in global inflation is nonetheless set to flatten for now as our Global Inflation Diffusion Index based on consumer and producer prices across 27 economies has begun to fall, which normally points to lower global headline and core consumer prices (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: The market's attention has been captured by the dramatic flare-up in trade tensions between the U.S. and China, but a more imminent risk has been garnering less press: the decline of reflation. China sent the first salvo on this front; DM central banks have also slowly been either tightening outright or not expanding monetary aggregates as aggressively as before. As a result, global liquidity is tightening and global growth is slowing. Global inflation is also set to decelerate as well, suggesting the decline in economic activity will not be a real phenomenon only, but a nominal one as well. Key Currency Market Implications One of the key implications of lower global growth and ebbing inflationary pressures is likely to be a stronger dollar. As Chart I-9 illustrates, when our Global Inflation Diffusion Index declines and global inflationary pressures ebb, the dollar tends to strengthen. This makes sense: the dollar does best when global growth weakens, inflation slows and commodity prices soften. This time around, the case for a few quarters of dollar strength may be even better defined. U.S. inflation is unlikely to decelerate as much as non-U.S. inflation as U.S. capacity utilization is tighter, the U.S. labor market is at full employment and America is receiving an extraordinarily large amount of fiscal stimulus at this late stage of the business cycle. Chart I-8No Acceleration For Now In Global Inflation Chart I-9Ebbing Inflationary Pressures Will Help The Dollar Technical considerations suggest the dollar is well placed to take advantage of these dynamics. On a short-term basis, both our intermediate-term oscillator and 13-week rate-of-change measures have formed positive divergences with the DXY itself (Chart I-10). While the pattern does not look as bullish as the one registered in 2014, it evokes deep similarities with the 2011 formation. On a longer-term basis, the dollar is massively oversold, as measured by the 52-week rate of change measure. It is true that it managed to stay at similarly oversold levels for nearly a year in 2003, but back then the dollar was much more expensive than today: the U.S. current account deficit was 4.4% of GDP versus 2.4% today and the basic balance of payments deficit was at 3% of GDP versus 2% today (Chart I-11). It is reasonable that with these stronger fundamentals, the dollar will not need to hit as oversold levels as back then before staging a significant rebound. Chart I-10Positive Divergences For The Greenback Chart I-11Dollar Technicals And Valuations: 2003 Vs. Today With global growth slowing, especially in Asia, it is easy to paint a picture where the dollar only strengthens against EM and commodity currencies - the currencies most exposed to both global growth and this specific geographic area. However, while we do see downside in USD/JPY, we expect the greenback to rally against the euro toward EUR/USD 1.15. Our model for EUR/USD shows that the euro is trading 10% above its fair value determined by real rate differentials, the relative slope of yield curves and the price of copper relative to lumber (Chart I-12). In fact, since Europe is more levered to global economic activity than the U.S., these drivers are likely to deteriorate a bit further for the remainder of 2018. Chart I-12EUR/USD Is Vulnerable GBP/USD also looks set to experience a period of weakness against the greenback. Historically, GBP/USD and EUR/USD have been correlated. This is a simple reflection of the fact that the U.K. has a deeper economic relationship with the euro area than the U.S., and thus benefits from the same economic impulses as the eurozone. Chart I-13GBP/USD: ##br##Extremely Overbought Some pound-specific factors will also play against GBP/USD. As we argued last week, the British domestic economy is rather weak; this week's construction PMI confirmed this assessment.4 Additionally, the British basic balance of payments is in deficit anew. This is not only a reflection of the U.K.'s current account deficit of 4% of GDP, it also reflects the fact that FDI into the U.K. has been melting in response to uncertainty surrounding Brexit. This means the U.K. is dependent upon global liquidity to finance this large deficit. An environment where global growth is set to decelerate and where global liquidity is tightening will make it more expensive to finance this large hole. The fastest means to increase expected returns on British assets to attract foreigners' funds is to depreciate the pound today. Finally, the GBP's annual momentum has hit levels consistent with a reversal in cable (Chart I-13). Staying in Europe, another pair is currently interesting and devoid of taking on any USD risk: EUR/CHF. While we think EUR/CHF has more upside over the remainder of the economic cycle,5 this is unlikely to be the case in the second and third quarters of 2018. The Swiss franc tends to outperform the euro when reflationary forces retreat, when global growth slows and when FX volatility increases - all views we espouse for the coming quarters. Moreover, Switzerland's current account and basic balance-of-payment surpluses are 6.5% of GDP and 11.5% of GDP greater than that of the euro area, providing further attraction in a growth soft spot. Finally, EUR/CHF is massively overbought right now, pointing to heightened vulnerability to the economic risks highlighted above (Chart I-14). We are opening a short EUR/CHF trade this week. In the same vein, we remain bearish EUR/JPY. Finally, in previous reports, we highlighted the AUD as being the currency most at risk from any downshift in global growth.6 Despite its recent weakness, we think the AUD is likely to remain very vulnerable. We have been short AUD/NZD since last October, and we do believe this pair will retest 1.04 before forming a base. Australia is experiencing even less inflationary pressures than New Zealand, and is more exposed to slower global industrial production than its neighbor. Technically, AUD/NZD still has some downside. As Chart I-15 illustrates, the 13-week rate of change measure for AUD/NZD has not yet hit the kind of depressed levels associated with complete capitulation. In fact, the recent breakdown in momentum points toward such capitulation as being imminent. AUD/JPY too is not yet oversold enough to be a buy, especially in the context of slowing global growth. Thus, we continue to recommend investors stay short this pair. Chart I-14Technical Indicators Confirm ##br##The Fundamental Vulnerability Of EUR/CHF Chart I-15AUD/NZD Has A Little Bit More Downside Bottom Line: Ebbing reflationary forces suggest the trade-weighted dollar is likely to rally over the coming months. We do see upside for the USD against EM and commodity currencies, but against European currencies as well. Only the yen is anticipated to buck this trend. Within the commodity-currency complex, we foresee that the AUD will suffer the most, and the CAD the least. Within the European currency complex, we are selling EUR/CHF. We are not selling EUR/USD as we are already long the DXY. A Cyclical Opportunity To Sell EUR/CAD This trade is an attractive means to bet on global growth slowing, especially relative to the U.S. As we have argued, U.S. financial conditions have eased relative to the rest of the world, the U.S. is enjoying large injections of fiscal stimulus and it is less exposed to declining global growth. As a result, we anticipate the outperformance of the U.S. ISM to continue relative to global PMIs. Historically, this is an environment where EUR/CAD tends to depreciate (Chart I-16). This is because while 75% of Canadian exports go to the U.S., only 13% of euro area exports end up there. Thus, Canada is much more exposed to the U.S. business cycle than Europe, who is exposed to the rest of the world's. Domestic factor also argues in favor of shorting EUR/CAD. Canadian core inflation is in an uptrend, and at 2% is at the Bank of Canada's target. European core inflation meanwhile only stands at 1%. Moreover, Canada's unemployment's rate is already 0.5% below equilibrium, while the euro area's is 0.4% above such equilibrium (Chart I-17). Thus, European wages and service sector inflation is likely to continue to lag behind Canada's. As a result, we continue to expect the BoC to keep hiking in line with the Fed, or another three times this year. The same cannot be said for the ECB. Chart I-16EUR/CAD: A Play Global Vs. U.S. Growth Chart I-17No Slack In Canada, Plenty In Europe Making the trade even more attractive, EUR/CAD is currently trading at a premium on many metrics. First, our augmented interest rate parity models show that the EUR/CAD trades anywhere between 10-15% above fair value (Chart I-18).7 Relative productivity trends have been a reliable long-term indicator of the path for EUR/CAD. On this metric as well, EUR/CAD is trading at a significant 9% premium (Chart I-19). Finally, EUR/CAD has tended to trend in an inverse relationship with oil prices. Today, it is well above levels implied by various oil prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-18EUR/CAD Trades At A Premium To Rate Differentials... Chart I-19...At A Premium To Relative Productivity... In our view, a key factor explains these discounts: Fears regarding the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement. An abandonment of NAFTA would hurt Canadian growth and prompt the BoC to be much more dovish than we anticipate. However, while there will be some small tweaks to NAFTA, the probability of a major overhaul that deeply affects the North American supply chain has declined, as Canada and Mexico are being exempted from steel and aluminum tariffs and as the White House has softened its stance on the U.S. content of Canadian auto exports back to the U.S. Our Geopolitical team assesses that the probability of a major NAFTA overhaul has declined from 50% to less than 20%, especially as Trump now has bigger fish to fry with China. As a result of these improvements in negotiations, EUR/CAD is potentially set to decline toward 1.44 over the rest of 2018, especially as our oil strategists continue to expect Brent prices to average US$74/bbl this year. Meanwhile, the ratio of copper prices to oil prices, which has been a decent early directional indicator for this cross, suggests the timing is ripe to bet against euro/CAD (Chart I-21), especially as slowing global growth will further weigh on copper relative to oil. Chart I-20...And A Premium To Oil Chart I-21Where Copper-To-Oil Goes, So Does EUR/CAD Bottom Line: An attractive means to bet on slowing global growth while benefiting from the impact of the U.S.'s fiscal stimulus is to short EUR/CAD. Not only is this cross a play on the differential between international and U.S. growth, it is also currently trading at a large premium on various metrics. Dissipating risks that NAFTA will be abrogated in a major way are providing an attractive cyclical entry point to short EUR/CAD, with an initial target of 1.44. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Analyst haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 For more analysis on trade wars and the current China/U.S. spat, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Tariffs Good or Bad For The Dollar?" dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com as well as the Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China", dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We have already gone over the role of China at length to explain the global growth slowdown. For detailed discussions on the topic, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Return Of Macro Volatility", dated March 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more indicators pointing toward slower global growth, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017 and "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth", dated December 15, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Do not Get Flat-Footed By Politics", dated March 30, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan", dated March 23, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop in Frankfurt", dated January 26, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 7 EUR/CAD trades 15% above a fair value model, that does not encapsulate the trend in the cross. If the recent cross is taken into account through a model that incorporates mean-reversion, EUR/CAD trades at a more modest 10% above its fair value. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: ISM Manufacturing came in slightly weaker than expected at 59.3; However, ISM Prices Paid was a very strong number, 78.1, up from the previous 74.2; Services PMI and Non-Manufacturing ISM also disappointed expectations; The trade balance in February fell to US$ -57.6 bn; Initial jobless claims, however, came in much higher than expected at 242,000. The dollar is now up more than 2% from its February lows. This has been driven by slowing global growth, particularly in Korean and Taiwanese trade data. The greenback should fare well in this environment. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar? - March 9, 2018 The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: German retail sales disappointed, growing at a 0.7% monthly pace and a 1.3% annual pace; German Manufacturing PMI came in slightly lower than expected at 58.2; European unemployment dropped to 8.5% as expected; Headline inflation improved to 1.4% also as expected, but core inflation came in weaker than expected at 1%. The euro is set to experience a period of correction as inflation in the Eurozone remains weak and global growth is slowing, as Asian economic data increasingly shows. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth outperformed despite coming in at -2.6%. The Nikkei manufacturing PMI surprised on the strong side, coming in at 53.1 However, the Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations coming in at 50.9. USD/JPY has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect that the yen will continue to strengthen, given that the market will continue to be rattled by the increasing a weakening in global growth. This risk off environment should benefit the yen. However, given the slowdown in Japanese economic data, the BoJ will eventually have to intervene to make sure that the rise in the yen does not derail the economic recovery and particularly, its inflation objective. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Markit Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1. It also increased slightly from last month's reading. However PMI construction underperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 47. This is the lowest level in more than 2 years. GBP/USD has been relatively flat this week. Overall the latest construction PMI number confirms our analysis: the uncertainty caused by Brexit is weighing heavily on Britain's housing market. This weakness in the housing sector, coupled with a strong pound, will likely limit how high British interest rates can go. Therefore GBP/USD has downside on a tactical basis. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was weak: The RBA's Commodity Index in SDR terms contracted by 2.1% annually, much more than the expected 0.1% contraction; Building permits contracted on a monthly basis at a rate of 6.2%, while also contracting at a 3.1% pace in annual terms; However, retail sales did pick up in monthly terms at a rate of 0.6%. At the monetary policy meeting on Tuesday, Governor Philip Lowe referenced the increase in short-term funding costs that have spilled over from the U.S. into foreign markets owing to higher volatility, particularly in Australia. An escalation of a trade war will also prove to be very damaging for the Australian economy, which is a large export-based and commodity-dependent nation. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Overall we expect this cross to weaken going forward, given that New Zealand is one of the most open economies in the G10, and thus, it stands to risks the most from both an increasing risk of trade wars and slowing global growth. Moreover, there are also some negative aspects of New Zealand on a more structural basis, as the neutral rate is set to be lowered. This is because the populist government is looking to lower immigration while also implementing a dual mandate for the central bank. All of these factors will cause the kiwi to suffer on a long term basis. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Data out of Canada was mixed: Manufacturing PMI came in line with expectations of 55.7; Exports and Imports for February came in at CAD 45.94 bn and CAD 48.63 bn, respectively, sinking the trade balance to CAD -2.69 bn. The CAD received a fillip on Tuesday as President Trump hopes to conclude preliminary negotiations for NAFTA by the end of next week. While the outcome for these negotiations remains uncertain, the Canadian economy is still in great shape, with a tight labor market, high wage growth and a closing output gap. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Headline inflation outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.8%. Real retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2%. However, the SVME PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 60.3. EUR/CHF has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect EUR/CHF to have further upside on a long-term basis. The Swiss economy is still weak and inflationary pressures are tepid. This means that any further appreciation by the franc will weigh heavily on the SNB's goals. While for now EUR/CHF could suffer as global growth declines, the SNB will fight this trend in order for them to achieve their inflation target. Thus, any rally in the CHF will prove temporary. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week. Overall, the krone should outperform most other commodity currencies given that oil should perform better than the rest of the commodity complex in the current environment. While all commodities would be affected by a possible slowdown in global growth and Chinese industrial production, oil will probably hold up the best given that advanced economies consume a greater proportion of oil than they do of other commodities, making oil less sensitive to gyrations in global industrial activity than metals. Moreover, the supply backdrop for oil remains more favorable than that of other commodities thanks to OPEC and Russia's production restrains. All of these developments should help the NOK outperform currencies like the NZD and the AUD. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data was disappointing: Manufacturing PM came in at 55.9, below last month's 59.9; New Orders increased annually only by 1.3% compared to 8.7% in January; Industrial production contracted in monthly terms by 0.5%, and grew annually by 5.7%, but it was still a deceleration relative to the previous 7.7% reading. The SEK has been weakening because of three factors: the talk of trade wars, the slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, and Sweden's housing bubble. While these risks are very real, Sweden's favorable macro backdrop of a cheap currency, a high basic balance of payments surplus and an economy operating above capacity mean that inflation will pick up meaningfully. This will prompt the SEK to rally once global growth can find its floor. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Neutral The S&P health care equipment (HCE) index has caught a bid recently, reflecting the sector's strong profit momentum, following nearly a decade of decline (second panel). We fear, however, that investors have become somewhat overzealous as the run up in stock prices has dramatically outpaced earnings expectations, pushing the forward price/earnings multiple to its highest level since the GFC (third panel). Such excitement, particularly when industry pricing power is lagging far behind the rest of the broad corporate sector (bottom panel) seems misplaced. Net, we continue to think the catalyst for a sustainable move higher in the index will be a recovery in pricing power and, in the absence of evidence of this, we reiterate our benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HCEP: MDT, ABT, DHR, BDX, SYK, ISRG, BSX, BAX, EW, ZBH, IDXX, RMB, VAR, HOLX.

Overweight (High-Conviction) The S&P software index caught a bid last week, led by heavyweight Microsoft (representing a bit more than 50% of the index) following a positive sell-side report that put a one-year price target implying a $1 trillion market cap. The basis for the (very) high expectations was Microsoft's dominant position in cloud computing and its rapid adoption in the marketplace; we are very much in agreement as we believe software spending is in the early days of an acceleration. CEO confidence, despite having peaked, remains near decade-highs, typically a precursor of greater software spending (second panel). Bank loan growth, another leading indicator of loosening purse strings, has just turned a corner (third panel). Our optimism is clearly shared by the analyst consensus view as earnings revisions have reached a seven-year high (bottom panel). Adding it up, we think more outperformance is in store for this technology subsector; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT-MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, INTU, EA, ADSK, RHT, SYMC, SNPS, ANSS, CDNS, CTXS, TTWO, CA, CDNS.

Feature Japan's economic experience in the post bubble era is often described as a fate to avoid at all costs. We would like to turn this common notion on its head. Rather than something to avoid, Japan's post bubble experience is a fate that other major economies should actively try to emulate, at least in parts. This report focusses on three specific lessons for European investors. Japan's so-called 'lost decades' describe the weak growth in its nominal GDP since the mid-1990s. But this emphasis on aggregate nominal income is grossly misleading. Standards of living do not depend on nominal GDP. What matters is real GDP per head combined with the absence of extreme income inequality. Real income must grow and this growth must benefit the majority, rather than a small minority. Since the late 1990s, the growth in Japan's real GDP per head has outperformed every other major economy (Chart Of The Week). And unlike other major economies, income inequality in Japan has not increased, remaining amongst the lowest in the developed world (Chart I-2). This is not surprising. Credit booms inflate bubbles in financial assets, which exacerbate income and wealth inequalities. Chart Of The WeekJapan Has Outperformed Everybody Chart I-2Income Inequality In Japan Has Not Increased Admittedly, the government has been running persistent deficits, but this is to counterbalance private sector de-levering. Total indebtedness as a share of GDP has not been rising. In the post credit boom era, Japan's real growth has come entirely from productivity improvements. Mankind's persistent ability to learn, experiment, and innovate produces more and/or better output from a fixed set of inputs. Unlike the unsustainable growth that is fuelled by credit booms and asset bubbles, real growth that comes from productivity improvements is sustainable. Genuine Price Stability: Something To Celebrate, Not Fear Japanese consumer prices are at the same level today as they were in 1992, meaning that Japan has experienced genuine price stability for two and a half decades (Chart I-3). But this is neither new, nor alarming - Britain enjoyed genuine price stability for two and a half centuries! At the height of the British Empire in 1914, consumer prices were little different to where they stood at the end of the English Civil War in 1651 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Japan Has Experienced Genuine Price ##br## Stability For Two And A Half Decades... Chart I-4...But Britain Experienced Genuine Price Stability For Two And A Half Centuries! Nevertheless, central banks continue with the deception that price stability means an inflation rate of 2%. This is clearly nonsense. Think about it - if prices rise by 2% a year, then your money will lose a quarter of its purchasing power every decade. And after a typical working life, your money will have lost two-thirds of its value.1 How exactly does that qualify as price stability?2 Still, we frequently hear a strong counterargument - in a highly indebted economy, inflation and growth in nominal GDP do matter. As debt is a nominal amount, it is nominal incomes that determine the ability to service and repay the high level of debt. So given a free choice, policymakers would prefer to have inflation at 2% rather than at zero; and nominal GDP growth at 3.5% rather than at 1.5%. Unfortunately, policymakers do not have this free choice. Contrary to what central bankers promise, inflation and nominal GDP growth cannot be dialled up or down at will to hit a point target. As we explained a while back in The Case Against Helicopters, inflation is a non-linear phenomenon which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point target.3 Look at the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. The big problem is that both the broad money supply M and its velocity V - whose product determines nominal GDP - are highly non-linear. Chart I-5The Money Multiplier Is Non-Linear M is non-linear because the commercial banking system money multiplier - the ratio of loans to bank reserves - is non-linear. At a tipping point of inflation, the onus suddenly flips from lending as little as possible to lending as much as possible (Chart I-5). Admittedly, the central bank (in cahoots with the government) could by-pass the commercial banking system to control the money supply M directly. But it can do nothing to change the extreme non-linearity of the other driver of nominal GDP, the velocity of money V. Again, at a tipping point, the onus suddenly flips to spending money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as fast as possible. At this point, nominal GDP growth and inflation suddenly and uncontrollably phase-shift from ice to fire with little in between. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that just like the BoJ, the ECB will keep moving the 2% inflation goalpost further and further into the future, as it realises the impossibility of achieving and sustaining the 2% point target. So even with inflation in the 1-2% channel, the ECB will create a loophole to exit NIRP and ZIRP very soon after it exits QE. This will structurally support the euro. Do Not Own Banks For The Long Term (Or Now) Japanese financial sector profits stand at less than half their peak level in 1990. For euro area financial sector profits which peaked in 2007, the interesting thing is that they are tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect no sustained growth through the next 17 years (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Euro Area Financial Profits May Experience No Sustained Growth In a post credit boom era, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. This loss becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Bank profits are dependent on two other drivers. One is operational leverage - the amount of equity held against the balance sheet. More stringent European regulation will make this a headwind too. Banks will have to hold more equity capital against assets, diluting their profitability. The other driver is the net interest margin - the difference between rates received on loans and rates paid on deposits, effectively a function of the yield curve slope. However, this is a cyclical driver, and as explained last week in Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead? this driver is unlikely to be positive in the coming months.4 What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that euro area financials is not a sector to buy and hold for the long term. Rather, it is a sector to play during periodic strong countertrend rallies, albeit now is not the time for such a cyclical play. A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-7Sales Of Personal Products Have Boomed Over the past twenty years, Japanese sales of skin cosmetics and beauty products have almost tripled (Chart I-7). This has helped the personal products sector to outperform very strongly. The personal products sector is dominated by female spending. So it is significant that in 1995, the Japanese government introduced a raft of policies to encourage women to join the labour force: paid maternity leave, subsidised childcare, and paid parental leave for both parents. Today in Japan, both mothers and fathers can take more than a year of paid parental leave at an average rate of 60% of earnings. The policies had their desired effect. The proportion of Japanese women in the labour force has surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 85%. Therefore, all of the growth in the Japanese labour force through the past twenty years has come from women. Europe tells a similar tale. Through the past couple of decades, parental leave policies have become steadily more generous. Unsurprisingly, the proportion of European women in the labour force has also surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 78%. So just as in Japan, all of the growth in European labour force participation through the past twenty years has come from women (Chart I-8). But for the ultimate end-point in the European trend, look to the Scandinavian countries which have had generous parental leave policies since the 1970s. As a result, labour force participation for Swedish women is almost identical to that for men: 80% versus 83%. If the EU eventually reaches the Scandinavian end-point, it would mean another 20 million women in the EU labour force. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? While Japanese financial profits have halved since 1990, Japanese personal products profits have quintupled. Once again, the useful thing is that euro area personal product profits are uncannily tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag (Chart I-9). If euro area personal product profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect them to almost triple over the next 17 years. Stay overweight the European personal products sector. Chart I-8A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-9Personal Products Profits Set To Grow Very Strongly Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming you work for 50 years. 2 Admittedly, measured inflation probably overstates true inflation. However, estimates put this measurement error at no more than 0.3-0.5 percentage points. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Case Against Helicopters' published on May 5 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead?' published on March 29 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week’s trade recommendation is to go long the Australian dollar versus the Norwegian krone. The profit target is 2% with a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-10 * 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 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 Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

A return of volatility, spurred on by Fed tightening, caused an SPX pullback in February, and while the market pushed through that rough patch, it has since been replaced with fears of a trade war, exacerbated by musical chairs in the Trump administration. Despite shaky markets, our portfolio positioning has not changed and we remain firmly behind cyclicals over defensives, driven principally by our key 2018 investment themes: synchronized global capex growth (top and second panels) and higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation (bottom panel). Still, the return of volatility warrants a review of our macro, valuation and technical indicators. The best combination in our review is S&P financials (Overweight) with an elevated and accelerating cyclical macro indicator (CMI), fed by both of our key capex growth and rising interest rate themes, combined with a modest undervaluation. The worst combination is S&P telecom services (Underweight, high-conviction), whose CMI recently touched a 30-year low as sector deflation hit acute levels. Valuations make the sector look cheap, but every indication is that telecoms are a value trap. Please see this week's Cyclical Indicator Update for more details.

Highlights Key Portfolio Highlights Our portfolio positioning remains firmly behind cyclicals over defensives, driven principally by our key 2018 investment themes: synchronized global capex growth (Chart 1A) and higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation (Chart 1B). The positioning has been lifted by synchronized global growth and a soft U.S. dollar (Chart 1C), while the key risk to our portfolio of a hard landing in China looks to be mitigated (Chart 1D). A return of volatility, spurred on by Fed tightening (Chart 1E), caused an SPX pullback in February, and while the market pushed through that rough patch, it has since been replaced with fears of a trade war, exacerbated by musical chairs in the Trump administration (Chart 1F). Our buy-the-dip strategy remains appropriate on a cyclical time horizon (Chart 1G), given a dearth of evidence of a recession in the next year. SPX forward EPS estimates still show near-20% increases this calendar year (corroborated by our EPS growth model, Chart 1H) which should underpin outsized equity returns in the absence of a major valuation rerating. Still, the return of volatility warrants a review of our macro, valuation and technical indicators. The best combination in our review is S&P financials (Overweight) with an elevated and accelerating cyclical macro indicator (CMI), fed by both of our key capex growth and rising interest rate themes, combined with a modest undervaluation. The worst combination is S&P telecom services (Underweight, high-conviction), whose CMI recently touched a 30-year low as sector deflation hit acute levels. Valuations make the sector look cheap, but every indication is that telecoms are a value trap. Chart 1AGlobal Trade Is Rising... Chart 1B...But So Too Is Inflation Chart 1CA Weaker Dollar Is A Boon To Growth Chart 1DSoft Landing In China Seems Likely Chart 1EThe Return Of Vol May Spoil The Party... Chart 1F...And Policy Uncertainty Doesnt Help Chart 1GBuy The Dip Has Worked Out Nicely Chart 1HHeed The Message From A Booming EPS Model Feature S&P Financials (Overweight) Our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI, Chart 2) has climbed to new cyclical highs with significant upward momentum, driven by broad improvement in virtually all of its underlying components. More than any other variable, rising yields and the accompanying higher price of credit are a boon to financials. Higher interest rates is one of BCA's key themes for 2018 and an ongoing selloff in the bond market bodes well for profits in the heavyweight banks sub-index and should deliver the next up leg in bank stocks performance (top panel, Chart 3). Another of BCA's key themes for 2018 is a global capex upcycle; higher demand for capital goods should drive outsized capital formation in the year to come. Our U.S. commercial banks loans and leases model echoes this positive outlook, pointing to the best loan growth of the past 30 years (middle panel, Chart 3). Lastly, a low unemployment rate drives both expanding consumer credit and much better credit quality. At present, the unemployment rate is testing all-time lows, sending an unambiguously positive message for financials profitability (bottom panel, Chart 3). Despite the much-improved cyclical outlook and a revival of overall animal spirits, our valuation indicator (VI) suggests that financials are modestly undervalued. At this point in the cycle, we would expect a modest overvaluation; the implication is that financials should be a core portfolio overweight. Our technical indicator (TI) has approached overbought levels several times over the course of this bull market, though history suggests it can stay at elevated levels for a considerable time. Chart 2S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 3RS1 Rising Yields Are A Boon To Financials Earnings S&P Industrials (Overweight) Our industrials CMI (Chart 4) has gone vertical and is very near its all-time high. A combination of a supportive currency, a recovery in commodity prices and synchronized global growth are responsible for the rise. A falling U.S. dollar and capital goods producers' top line growth acceleration have historically moved hand-in-hand as this group is one of the most international of the S&P 500. The trade-weighted U.S. dollar has fallen by more than 10% from its most recent peak at the end of 2016 which suggests U.S. industrials should have a leg up in sales for the year to come (top panel, Chart 5). The slide in the U.S. dollar is coming at an opportune time; global growth is remarkably synchronized (and remains a key BCA theme for 2018) and has proven an excellent harbinger of industrials margins (bottom panel, Chart 5). Overall, an expanding top line and widening margins imply solid relative EPS gains. Our valuation gauge is near the neutral zone, where it has been for much of the past 3 years as the market has failed to capture the sector's outlook strength. Our TI echoes the neutral message, having unwound a significant overbought position at the beginning of last year. Chart 4S&P Industrials (Overweight) Chart 5Global Euphoria Should Lift Industrials S&P Energy (Overweight) Our energy CMI (Chart 6) has maintained its upward trajectory after bouncing off all-time lows last year. Importantly, the relative share performance does not yet reflect the drastically improved cyclical conditions, underpinning our overweight recommendation. Falling oil inventories and rising prices (top and second panel, Chart 7) combined with solid gains in domestic production underlie the CMI recovery. Our key themes for 2018 of a global capex expansion and synchronized global growth should be the most important drivers for energy stocks this year. With respect to the former, the capex intentions from the Dallas Fed survey hit their highest level in a decade, which usually presages domestic oil patch expansion and energy stock outperformance (third panel, Chart 7) With respect to global growth, emerging markets/Chinese demand is the swing determinant of overall oil demand, and non-OECD demand has been moving higher for most of the past year (bottom panel, Chart 7). Our VI has retreated far into undervalued territory, a result of the aforementioned failure of stocks to react to the enticing macro outlook. The TI too is in deeply oversold levels, suggesting that an oversold bounce could soon occur at a time when valuations are so appealing. Chart 6S&P Energy (Overweight) Chart 7Energy Share Prices Have Trailed Oils Recovery S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Our consumer staples CMI (Chart 8) has turned up recently, following a two year decline. Strong employment gains and positive retail sales are the key pillars underlying the modest recovery. The euphoric consumer continues to push our consumer staples EPS model higher, now pointing to the best earnings growth of the past 5 years (middle panel, Chart 9). Overall industry exports are expanding at a healthy clip as a consequence of a softening U.S. dollar and robust European and rebounding emerging markets demand. Deflating raw food commodity prices are offsetting rising energy and labor input costs, heralding a sideways move to margins. Sell side analysts are also currently penciling in a lateral profit margin move (bottom panel, Chart 9). Investors have been vehemently avoiding staples stocks during the board market's uninterrupted run up, and have put our positioning offside. However, in the context of our cyclical over defensive portfolio bent we refrain from putting all our eggs in one basket, and prefer to keep consumer staples as our sole defensive sector overweight. Further, our VI is waving a green flag as consumer staples are now nearly two standard deviations below their 30-year mean valuation. Technical conditions too are completely washed out, signaling widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 8S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 9Robust Consumer Confidence Bodes Well S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our utilities CMI (Chart 10) has spent the last decade in a long-term downtrend, albeit one with periodic countertrend moves. The key underlying factors are natural gas prices and relative spending on utilities, both of which have been retreating since 2008 (middle panel, Chart 11). Encouragingly, the sector's wage bill has slowed from punitively high levels, though pricing power has followed it down, implying muted margin changes (bottom panel, Chart 11). Like other defensive sectors, utilities have underperformed cyclical sectors in the last year; utilities equities trade as fixed income proxies, and a rising interest rate environment is punitive. As a result of the underperformance and relatively constant earnings, valuations have collapsed to the neutral zone. We reacted by booking solid gains and upgrading to a benchmark allocation earlier this year; synchronized global growth and higher interest rates are headwinds for this niche defensive sector and prevent us from lifting positions further. Our TI has fallen steeply over the past year and is now closing in on two standard deviations below the 30-year average. Chart 10S&P Utilities (Neutral) Chart 11Pricing Is Falling But Margins Look Neutral S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Our real estate CMI (Chart 12) has been in decline since its most recent peak at the end of 2016. This is confirmed by a darkened outlook for REITs; rents have crested while the vacancy rate found its nadir in 2016, suggesting further rent weakness on the horizon (top panel, Chart 13). Further, bankers appear less willing to extend commercial real estate credit, despite recent stability in underlying prices; declines in credit availability will directly impact REIT valuations (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our VI is consistent with BCA's Treasury bond indicator (not shown), indicating that both are at fair value. Our TI is starting to firm from extremely oversold levels, a positive indication for both 12- and 24-month relative performance. Chart 12S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Chart 13Peaking Rents and Tight Credit Are Headwinds S&P Materials (Neutral) Our materials CMI (Chart 14) has maintained its downward trajectory, largely due to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle. The heavyweight chemicals component of the materials index typically sees earnings (and hence stock prices) underperform as rates are moving higher (top panel, Chart 15). BCA's view remains that a sizable selloff in the bond markets is the most likely scenario in 2018, representing a substantial headwind to sector performance. Still, the news is not all negative. Exceptionally strong global demand growth has revitalized chemicals prices (bottom panel, Chart 15). Combined with the industry's relatively newfound restraint, capacity has not overextended and the resulting productivity gains bode well for earnings growth. Despite the improving outlook, valuations have been retreating for much of the past year and our VI has fallen back to the neutral zone. Our TI has been hovering near the neutral line for the past year, though a recent hook downward indicates a loss of momentum and downside relative performance risks. Chart 14S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 15Rising Rates Are Offset By Improving Demand S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Our consumer discretionary CMI (Chart 16) has fallen back after reaching highs earlier in 2017, though remains elevated relative to the long term trend. Rising interest rates (top panel, Chart 17) are more than offsetting higher home prices and real wage growth, both have which have recently stalled. This rising short-term interest rate backdrop is not conducive to owning the extremely interest rate-sensitive equities that fall into the S&P consumer discretionary index. Both the household financial obligation ratio and household debt service payments have bottomed and are actually increasing. A higher interest rate backdrop will sustain the upward pressure on both and likely weigh on consumer discretionary relative share prices (third and bottom panels, Chart 17). This underpins our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Elevated valuations support our negative thesis as our valuation indicator has been rising recently out of the neutral zone. Our TI has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is now well into overbought territory, though historically this indicator has been excessively volatile. Chart 16S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Chart 17Higher Borrowing Costs Bode Ill For Consumer Discretionary S&P Health Care (Underweight) Our health care CMI (Chart 18) rolled over last year and has been treading water at these lower levels, driven by weak fundamentals in the key pharmaceuticals sector. Poor pricing power, a soft spending backdrop and a depreciating U.S. dollar have been pressuring the sector and keeping a tight lid on the CMI (top and second panels, Chart 19). Other non-pharma indicators are mixed as lower healthcare consumer spending is offset by a tick up in overall pricing power. Relative valuations have fallen deep into undervalued territory and are approaching one standard deviation below the 25 year average. Our TI too has reversed course and is well into oversold territory. However, the message from our health care earnings model is that sector earnings will continue to decelerate; this environment in not conducive for a sector re-rating (bottom panel, Chart 19). Chart 18S&P Health Care (Underweight) Chart 19Pharma Pricing Power Continues To Collapse S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Our telecom services CMI (Chart 20), after moving sideways for much of the past decade, has recently fallen to a new 30-year low. Extreme deflation continues to reign in the beleaguered sector as relative consumer outlays on telecom services have nosedived (top panel, Chart 21) which is broadly matched by melting selling prices (middle panel, Chart 21) as demand contracts. This is reflected in our S&P telecom services revenue growth model, which remains deep in contractionary territory (bottom panel, Chart 21). The sector remains chronically cheap, exacerbated by the recent sell-off, and is currently as cheap as it has ever been. Still, given the brutal operating environment, we think such valuations have created a value trap. Our Technical Indicator has sunk but, like the VI, cycles deep in the sell zone have not proven reliable indicators that a relative bounce is in the offing. We recently downgraded the sector to underweight and added it to our high-conviction underweight list based on the factors noted above.1 Chart 20S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Chart 21Telecom Services Remain A Value Trap S&P Technology (Underweight, Upgrade Alert) The technology CMI (Chart 22) has been falling for the past three years, driven by ongoing relative pricing power declines and new order weakness. However, the sector has proven resilient, at least until recently, as a handful of stocks (the FANGs, excluding the consumer discretionary components) and the red-hot semiconductor group have provided support. Still, market euphoria aside, tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods; inflation is gradually rising after a prolonged disinflationary period (bottom panel, Chart 23). Valuations, while still in the neutral zone, have reached their highest level in a decade. This may prove risky should inflation mount faster than expected; a de-rating phase in technology would likely follow. Our TI is extremely overbought, though it has been at this high level for several years. Chart 22S&P Technology (Underweight, Upgrade ALert) Chart 23Inflation Is No Friend To Tech Size Indicator (Neutral Small Vs. Large Caps) Our size CMI (Chart 24) has fallen back to the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator; the current message is neutral. Small company business optimism is near modern highs, as pricing and consumption vigor push domestic revenues higher (top panel, Chart 25). A smaller government footprint, i.e. fewer regulatory hurdles, and tax relief will disproportionately benefit SMEs. Earlier this year, we downgraded our recommendation on small caps vs. large caps to a neutral allocation, based on a deterioration in small cap margins and too-high leverage.2 Recent NFIB surveys would suggest this move was prescient; firms reporting planned labor compensation increases have steadied near a two decade high, while price increases are trailing far behind (middle panel, Chart 25). With "quality of labor" having overtaken "taxes" as the single most important problem facing businesses, labor compensation growth seems likely to continue moving up at an elevated pace and small cap margins should likely continue to trail large cap peers (bottom panel, Chart 25). Valuations have improved and small caps are relatively undervalued, though our TI echoes a neutral message. Chart 24Size Indicator (Neutral Small Vs. Large Caps) Chart 25Small Businesses Remain Exceptionally Confident Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True?" dated January 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Pressures Mount Spread product underperformed equivalent-duration Treasuries for the second consecutive month in March. But last month's underperformance was different than February's in one important way. In February it was the fear of inflation and tighter Fed policy that prompted the sell-off in spread product. Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed Treasuries by 62 basis points, while the Treasury index provided a total return of -75 bps and TIPS outperformed nominals. In March, the sell-off in spread product coincided with Treasury returns of +94 bps and TIPS underperformed nominals. The negative correlation between yields and spreads re-asserted itself signaling that the sell-off was not driven by inflation, but by concerns about a potential slow-down in global growth. A severe slow-down in global growth is not imminent. But higher inflation and tighter Fed policy remain our chief concerns. With that in mind, core inflation printed higher again last month (Chart 1), and we think it is only a matter of time before our TIPS breakeven target range of 2.3% to 2.5% is met. That will trigger a reduction in our recommended allocation to corporate bonds. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 91 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -81 bps. The sell-off of the past two months has returned some value to the investment grade corporate space, but spreads are still quite tight relative to history. The 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond has only been tighter 19% of the time since 1989.1 Our opinion of investment grade corporate bonds is unchanged. We continue to view value as relatively unattractive, and will reduce our overweight allocation once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are above 2.3%. Corporate profit data for the fourth quarter of 2017 were released last week, and our measure of EBITD for the non-financial corporate sector grew at an annualized rate of 2.4%, slightly below the 3% annualized increase in corporate debt. Gross leverage for the non-financial corporate sector ticked higher as a result (Chart 2). In a recent report we showed that sustained periods of corporate spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage.2 We also showed that while most leading profit indicators are still in good shape, a profit margin proxy based on the difference between corporate selling prices and unit labor costs is sending a warning sign. We expect profit growth to fall sustainably below debt growth later this year, driven by rising unit labor costs. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Chart 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 114 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -19 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 18 bps on the month and currently sits at 354 bps. The 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate ticked up to 3.56% in February, its highest reading since last July, but Moody's still expects it to decline to 1.96% during the next year. Based on the Moody's default rate projection and our own estimate of the recovery rate, we forecast High-Yield default losses of 0.97% for the next 12 months. This translates to a 12-month excess return of 257 bps for the High-Yield index versus Treasuries, assuming an un-changed junk spread (Chart 3). One hundred basis points of spread widening would lead to an excess return of -149 bps during this time horizon, and 100 bps of spread tightening would lead to an excess returns of +664 bps. However, such a large amount of spread tightening is probably over-optimistic. As inflation continues to rise and the Fed applies the brakes, a floor will likely remain under the VIX index of implied equity volatility and this will prevent junk spreads from recovering their cycle lows (top panel). We continue to await a firmer signal from our inflation indicators before reducing our allocation to high-yield. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -39 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread widened 7 bps on the month, split between a 4 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 3 bps widening in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The widening in MBS OAS has not been as severe as the widening in investment grade corporate OAS. As a result, mortgages no longer appear cheap relative to investment grade corporates (Chart 4). But while the value proposition in mortgages is less alluring, we still see limited potential for spreads to widen during the next 6-12 months. Refinancing risk will remain muted as interest rates rise (bottom panel), and in past reports we showed that extension risk will likely be immaterial.3 In the structured product space, Agency MBS offer 11 bps less spread than Aaa-rated consumer ABS, but are supported by falling residential mortgage delinquencies and easing bank lending standards. In contrast, consumer credit (auto loan and credit card) delinquency rates have bottomed and banks have begun to tighten lending standards (see page 12 for further details). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +2 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 58 bps on the month, while Foreign Agencies underperformed by 38 bps and Local Authorities underperformed by 33 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 6 bps, and Supranationals underperformed by a single basis point. USD-denominated sovereign bonds have performed worse than Baa-rated U.S. corporate bonds during the past six months, despite persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar (Chart 5). However, we do not think recent dollar weakness will provide much support for sovereign bond returns going forward. Rather, it is more likely that the U.S. dollar will appreciate during the next 6-12 months as the distribution of global growth shifts toward the United States. This month's issue of the Bank Credit Analyst discusses the cyclical and structural outlook for the U.S. dollar in detail.4 Elsewhere, Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities continue to offer attractive spreads after adjusting for duration and credit rating. We remain overweight those segments of the Government-Related universe despite an overall underweight allocation. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 56 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +29 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio widened 4% on the month, with short maturities performing somewhat worse than long maturities. The tax-adjusted yield for a 10-year municipal bond remains about 17 bps below the yield offered by an equivalent-duration corporate bond (Chart 6). As we have shown in prior research, investors typically get an opportunity to shift out of corporates and into munis at a positive spread differential before the end of the cycle.5 We will await this more attractive entry point before aggressively shifting our allocation in favor of munis. In a recent report we noted that state and local governments are still working to repair their budgets.6 More states enacted tax increases than decreases in fiscal year 2018 and the projected nominal budget increase across all states is a paltry 2.3%. Fortunately, our Municipal Health Monitor indicates that the hard work is paying off, and suggests that ratings upgrades should continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve flattened in March, as long maturity yields fell quite sharply despite a small increase in yields out to the 2-year maturity point. The 2/10 slope flattened 15 basis points on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 41 bps. The trade-off between the pace of Fed rate hikes on the one hand, and the re-anchoring of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates on the other will dictate the path for the yield curve during the next six months. Last month the Fed lifted rates for the sixth time this cycle, and signaled its desire to hike another 2-3 times before the end of the year. But just as further rate hikes will apply flattening pressure to the curve, the recent rebound in inflation will exert some offsetting steepening pressure. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 25-45 bps below a range that is consistent with inflation being anchored around the Fed's target. We recommend a curve steepening trade for now, specifically a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, because upward pressure on inflation will make it difficult for the curve to flatten much further during the next few months. We will shift aggressively into flatteners once TIPS breakevens reach our target range. Further, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for 19 bps of 2/10 flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). In other words, the 2/10 slope needs to flatten by more than 19 bps for a long 5-year bullet position to underperform. We view this as unlikely. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +67 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.05%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.18%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.7 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. If the recent trend in realized inflation continues, then this re-anchoring could occur relatively soon. February data show that the annualized 6-month rate of change in trimmed mean PCE rose to 2.03% (Chart 8), and while the 12-month rate of change held steady at 1.7%, it will start to move higher in March when the strong inflation prints from January and February 2017 are removed from the sample. Pipeline measures of inflation pressure also suggest that inflation will head higher, as evidenced by our Pipeline Inflation Indicator, and in particular, the Prices Paid component of the ISM Manufacturing index which just hit its highest level since 2011 (panel 4). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -19 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 44 bps, 11 bps above its pre-crisis low. While in prior research we highlighted that consumer ABS offer attractive spreads relative to many other sectors, we also pointed out that collateral credit quality is starting to weaken.8 With respect to value, Aaa-rated Consumer ABS offer a 12-month breakeven spread of 21 bps, while Agency MBS offer a spread of 6 bps and Agency CMBS offer a spread of 9 bps.9 However, household debt service ratios and delinquency rates appear to have bottomed for the cycle (Chart 9). While the pace of consumer credit accumulation remains robust, it has also moderated in recent months alongside rising delinquencies and tightening lending standards. We maintain a neutral allocation to ABS for the time being due to attractive valuation, but expect to downgrade in the future as household credit quality deteriorates. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +11 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 72 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean. While a spread of 72 bps is still attractive compared to similarly-rated alternatives, we remain concerned about the gap that has emerged between CMBS spreads and the rate of appreciation in commercial real estate (CRE) prices (Chart 10). While bank lending standards on CRE loans are still tightening, they are tightening less aggressively than in recent years (bottom panel). This could eventually remove a headwind from CRE prices, but for now we view a position in non-agency CMBS as overly risky. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -14 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Agency CMBS sector continues to offer an attractive spread pick-up relative to similar investment alternatives, and has historically exhibited low excess return volatility.10 Remain overweight. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.96% (Chart 11). While the fair value reading from our 2-factor model remains elevated for now, we expect it to fall once March Global PMI data are released this week. Based on a combination of final PMI data and Flash estimates for countries that have yet to report final March figures, we estimate that the Global PMI will decline to 53.8 in March from 54.2 in February. When combined with the most recent reading for dollar bullish sentiment, this gives a fair value of 2.85% for the 10-year Treasury yield. We will provide an official update to the model in next week's report, after the data are finalized. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.74%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required during the next 12 months for the bond to break even with a position in an equivalent-duration Treasury security. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Brainard Gives The Green Light", dated March 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?", dated March 29, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR", dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required during the next 12 months for the bond to break even with a position in an equivalent-duration Treasury security. 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)