Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights Italy cannot rely on currency devaluation to make up for poor competitiveness, as it did before the euro; Italian voters are becoming more Euroskeptic - the elections due by May 2018 pose a serious risk, as do elections thereafter; Necessary structural reforms, not in the cards at present, would be painful and could exacerbate the Euroskeptic trend in Italy; The mere suggestion of a referendum on the euro would cause a banking crisis ... though voters would likely decide to stay in the Euro Area; The ECB will surprise on the dovish side; EUR/USD will weaken slightly below parity by mid-2018; European equities will continue to outperform U.S. equities. Feature European politics have been a boon to investors in 2017 (Chart 1). Instead of destabilizing populism, investors have gotten promises of pro-market reforms. This positive development is as we expected: we dubbed European politics "a trophy red herring" in our 2017 Strategic Outlook1 and predicted the pro-market turn in France.2 Alas, Italy remains a Sword of Damocles hanging over Europe's head. Whereas public sentiment in Europe has turned decisively in favor of integration since 2013, it remains indecisive in Italy (Chart 2). The Italian "median voter" continues to flirt with Euroskepticism, which explains why the country's anti-establishment parties have not softened their Euroskepticism to the same degree as their peers elsewhere in Europe. Chart 1European Stocks Outperform American Chart 2Italians Doubting The Euro Monetary Union In this report, we attempt to answer several questions concerning Italy: What is structurally wrong with Italy? Why is Euroskepticism appealing to Italian voters? What would happen if Euroskeptics won the upcoming election and called a referendum on Euro Area membership? What would happen if Italy left the Euro Area? Italy's Purgatory: Aversion To Creative Destruction Italy has a structural productivity problem (Chart 3). Given weak labor force and productivity growth, Italy will be in and out of recessions for much of the next decade as its growth rate oscillates around zero. Particularly concerning is the steep decline in the country's total factor productivity, which suggests that Italians struggle to make use of technological innovation and that the economy is extremely inefficient. There is a vast literature detailing the structural problems of the Italian economy.3 We focus on the three most important impediments: The unproductive South, the Mezzogiorno, remains Europe's backwater; The public sector is riven with inefficiencies; Education and innovation remain sub-par. The first problem with Italy is that it remains an extremely bifurcated economy. Its northern regions, particularly Lombardy, are as wealthy as any in Europe (Map 1). Productivity rates and education standards are on par with core Europe (Chart 4). However, the Mezzogiorno has consistently pulled the aggregate Italian averages down (Chart 5). As the industrialized North was rebuilt after the Second World War, and as productivity and labor force growth rates surged, the backwardness of the Mezzogiorno was conveniently ignored. Since the late 1990s, however, productivity rates have declined in all of the developed world. For Italy, this means that the one-third of the population that lives in the unproductive South is no longer a rounding error. At its root, Italy's problem is that its unification in 1861, the Risorgimento, never went far enough to integrate the south and thus left a bifurcated economy that exemplifies the north-south divide in Europe as a whole.4 Several of the reform efforts undertaken by the Matteo Renzi-led Democratic Party (PD) government have sought to address the disparity between the North and the Mezzogiorno. However, these reforms will take time to bear fruit. Previous efforts have fallen short due to half-hearted implementation. The second structural problem is that Italy's public sector is large, riven with inefficiencies, and largely funded via corporate taxes due to poor overall tax collection. Italy's social security contributions are high, accounting for about 13% of GDP. Of this burden, the employer contribution rate is one of the highest in the world, only surpassed by France and Germany (Chart 6). Despite a developed-world tax burden, Italy has a developing-world system of tax collection. For example, its VAT revenue ratio is well below the OECD average, at the level of an emerging market (Chart 7).5 If the VAT revenue ratio was improved to the OECD average, Italy would see its VAT receipts rise by about €45 billion per year (enough to recapitalize all of its banks, for example, or reduce employers' social security contributions by a third). Not only is tax collection of poor quality, but paying taxes is exorbitantly difficult. The World Bank's "Paying Tax" indicator - which measures the cost and time of paying taxes - nestles Italy between Kenya and São Tomé at 126th out of 190 spots! For comparison sake, its Mediterranean peers Spain and Portugal are 37th and 38th respectively on the same index while even Greece is significantly better at 64th.6 Italy again ranks with EM countries on the World Bank's overall "Doing Business" report (Chart 8). It scores extremely low in the category of "enforcing contracts," where it finds itself sandwiched between the Gambia and Somalia, at the 108th rank! It takes more time - three years - to enforce a contract in Italy than in Pakistan, Egypt, and Mozambique. Public sector inefficiencies are not a result of nostalgia for Roman-era bureaucracy. Instead, Italy's administrative hurdles are a means to stifle domestic creative destruction and protect its numerous small and medium-sized businesses - many family-owned - from competition. Instead of fostering competition through innovation and investment, Italian industrial policy since the Second World War has largely relied on currency depreciation to boost competitiveness. This strategy ceased to be effective with the adoption of the euro, but the country never pushed through painful reforms to adjust to the new reality. While it is difficult to prove a counterfactual, we are not sure that even currency devaluation would have saved Italy from the onslaught of Asian manufacturing in the late 1990s. Euro Area imports from EM Asia have surged from less than 2% of total imports to nearly 10% in the last twenty years. Italy began losing market share to Asia well before the euro was introduced on January 1, 1999, as Chart 9 illustrates. Finally, Italy's educational system is in need of a massive overhaul. Some improvement in educational attainment was apparent by 2015 (Chart 10). However, the quality of Italian education is still woefully inadequate if measured by the results of post-secondary and tertiary education on literacy proficiency (Chart 11). Chart 9Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Italian firms are not making up for the poor educational attainments of the labor force with higher investment in knowledge-based capital - software, research, training, or management (Chart 12). There are likely three reasons for this outcome. First, low productivity begets low potential GDP growth, which hurts firms' top line prospects and incentives to invest. Second, decades of reliance on currency devaluation for competitiveness has discouraged Italian corporates from investing in R&D. Third, a plethora of small Italian family-owned businesses lack the resources to leverage their intellectual property with management and technology to become globally competitive. Last time Italy faced a painful recession - 1992-1995 - it did what had worked best since the Second World War: it devalued its way out of trouble (Chart 13A). Yet a comparable devaluation did not work for Italy in recent years, with exports failing to lead the way to recovery despite a 20% drop in EUR/USD since mid-2014 (Chart 13B). Why? Chart 13ACurrency Devaluation Has Not ##br##Worked This Time Around (I) Chart 13BCurrency Devaluation Has Not ##br##Worked This Time Around (II) Many of Italy's exports go to Euro Area peers. In 1995, the percentage was 48%, today it is 41%. As such, the devaluation in the 1990s was against those peers, allowing Italian exports to the EU Common Market to surge. Nonetheless, the lack of any growth in exports still does not make sense, given the large depreciation in the euro and the fact that 60% of Italy's exports are still destined for non-Euro Area markets. Bottom Line: Italy has failed to keep up in competitiveness over the past twenty years precisely because its reliance on devaluation worked wonders for the economy in the pre-euro era. Instead of committing itself to structural reforms, Italy has preserved its post-Second World War institutions that were expressly designed to limit creative destruction and domestic competition. Unlike France, which has largely an arithmetic problem, Italy has a genuine productivity problem. For Italy to boost economic growth, it will have to do a lot more than adjust a few labor laws or raise the retirement age (both of which it has already done!). It needs deep structural reforms that are impossible without a strong electoral mandate that gives the next government sufficient political capital for reforms. Such a mandate is unlikely to come in the next election, leaving Italy in a purgatory of its own making. Political Risks: An Assessment Current polls show that the ruling, center-left PD is running neck-and-neck with the anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) (Chart 14). Also in the mix are the center-right Forza Italia (FI), of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which has itself flirted with mild Euroskepticism, and the staunchly anti-EU Lega Nord (LN). The power of Italy's establishment and Euroskeptic parties is perfectly balanced (Chart 15) ahead of the general election, which has to take place before May 20, 2018. The exact date is as yet unclear, with President Sergio Mattarella insisting that it take place after parliament passes a new electoral law that will make the electoral system uniform for both houses of parliament. A recent agreement between the main four parties on an electoral bill broke down, again pushing the date to the second quarter of next year. With the election now likely a year away - and with European populists in retreat across the continent - should investors breathe a sigh of relief? Chart 14Euroskeptic Five Star Movement Challenges Ruling Democrats Chart 15Euroskeptics Roughly Equal To Establishment Parties In Polls No. Italy remains the political risk in Europe. There are three broad reasons we remain concerned about Italian politics: The Median Italian Voter Is Flirting With Euroskepticism Policymakers are not price makers in the political marketplace, but price takers. The price maker is the median voter.7 In Europe, the Euroskepticism of the median voter has been massively overstated by the media and markets. Across the Euro Area, support for the common currency has surged since 2013 (Chart 16), likely reflecting an improving economy and the deeply held belief among European voters that continental integration is an intrinsic good. It took some time for anti-establishment politicians to sound off the median voter, but when they did, they adjusted their stances. As such, initially Euroskeptic anti-establishment parties across the continent - from Greece's SYRIZA and Spain's Podemos to Finland's "Finns Party" - have abandoned overt Euroskepticism and moved towards the middle ground on European integration. Politicians who have refused to be price takers - and insisted on campaigning from an inflexible, Euroskeptic position - were punished by the political marketplace (case in point: Marine Le Pen). Italy, however, has not seen a recovery in support for European integration. This is in large part due to the fact that the Italian economy has remained a laggard since 2012 (Chart 17). But it may also reflect the fact that the siren song of currency depreciation remains appealing to a large segment of the Italian electorate. Both M5S and Lega Nord have been vociferously arguing that Italy was far more competitive before joining the Euro Area and that simple currency devaluation would turn Italy from a land of locusts into a land of milk and honey. Chart 16Support For The Euro Has Risen Everywhere Else Chart 17Lagging Economy Has Hurt Support For The Euro Italy's Relationship With The EU Is Transactional We have long contended that both European patricians and plebeians support further integration.8 Chart 18 shows that a strong majority of Europeans is outright pessimistic about the future of their country outside of the EU. Why? Because, as Chart 19 suggests, the EU stands for geopolitical stability and a stronger say in the world. Chart 18Most Europeans Fear Life Outside The EU For a majority of Europeans, the European project is essential for peace and stability in Europe. We would argue that this is not just a product of two world wars in the twentieth century. It is also a product of newfound Russian assertiveness, migration crisis, and a growing ideological distance between Europe and its former security guarantor, the U.S. Italians, on the other hand, appear to be significantly more "transactional" than their European peers. For example, Chart 19 shows that Italians stand apart in being significantly less concerned about "peace" and having a "stronger say in the world." A plurality of Italians has also become confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 20). Italians also appear to have the most negative perception of immigrants, perhaps due to the fact that they are at the frontline of Europe's migration crisis (Chart 21). Chart 20Italians Not So Afraid Of Life Outside The EU Why such a discrepancy in views between Italy and the rest of the continent? First, Italians have traditionally had a much more parochial view of the world. Regional differences matter a lot more to Italians than continental ones. Italians are already being asked to subsume one identity (regional) for another (national), so going a step further (supranational) may be too much. Data suggests that about half of all Italians are unwilling to go further (Chart 22). Second, Italy joined the EU as a considerably less developed economy than its core European peers. As such, membership was always sold to Italians from a transactional perspective and thus they do not give supremacy to geopolitical over economic forces. Chart 22Italians Less Likely To See Themselves As Europeans Elections Are Unlikely To Be Cathartic Italian Euroskeptics have consistently performed well in the polls for well over a year. Short of a significant surge in support for Matteo Renzi's PD, which we doubt will happen, polls are likely to continue to be tight until the election. The anti-establishment M5S performed extremely poorly in the June 11 municipal elections, failing to make the second-round run-off of the mayoral election in any of the major cities. However, we would fade the significance of this result given the national polls. As such, the best hope for investors is that anti-establishment forces suffer a modest defeat in next year's election. Short of a strong economic recovery that significantly reduces unemployment, an election win for the Italian establishment will not be as cathartic as the just-concluded election in France. And what are the odds of an outright Euroskeptic win? They are low, below 20%. M5S has no incentive to form a weak minority government, support an establishment-led government, or enter a risky coalition with Euroskeptic Lega Nord. It understands that remaining in the opposition would allow it to reap the benefits when the eventual coalition between establishment parties loses steam. The most likely scenario in next year's election is either an establishment Grand Coalition (40%), or a minority center-left government led by the ruling PD and supported on a case-by-case basis by the other parties (40%).9 Neither outcome is likely to survive the entire length of the mandate. Bottom Line: The long-term problem for investors is that the Euroskeptic narrative appears to be quite appealing to a large proportion of the Italian public. As such, even if the market avoids a crisis in 2018, one will likely emerge by 2020. The only way to avoid it would be a strong electoral mandate for deep structural reforms that boost productivity, which is not a likely outcome of the next election. But even if such reforms were initiated, we assume that their short-term consequences would be economic and political pain, which would sour support for establishment parties further and potentially deepen Euroskeptic sentiment in the country. As such, in the rest of the report, we examine what investors should expect in case the anti-establishment parties eventually take power in Italy. While such an outcome is unlikely in 2018, it may happen eventually. Leaving The Euro Is A Panacea... The political analysis above begs a simple question: Why are Italians more likely to be lured by the sirens of leaving the Euro Area than the French or Spanish have been? Fundamentally, the Italian experience is one of relatively successful devaluations. In the early 1990s, Italy was also suffering from a period of un-competitiveness, which prompted the current account to move from a 0.6% of GDP surplus in 1987 to a 2.5% of GDP deficit in 1992 (Chart 23). This deterioration reflected two factors. One was the notorious European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), which forced European currencies to move in lockstep with each other. The second was the fact that Italian unit labor costs had been in a bull market relative to the rest of the European community countries, rising by 380%, 140%, and 370% against German, France, and the Netherlands, respectively, between 1970 and 1991. Thanks to this confluence of events, Italy was in a bind. By early 1992, Italian real wages were contracting. More than a surge in inflation, this contraction reflected intensifying competitive pressures and the implementation of fiscal austerity (Chart 24). Investors ended up punishing Italian assets; Italian yields moved up, with spreads relative to Germany widening from 350 basis points to 750 basis points by September 1992. Chart 23Lack Of Competitiveness Caused Current Account Deficits... Chart 24...And Contributed To Falling Real Wages By that point, Italian authorities chose to let the previously stable lira fall, resulting in a 30% devaluation versus the deutschemark by the end of Q1 1993. Thanks to this easing, by the beginning of 1994 Italian spreads had fallen back below 300 basis points. However, the Italian economy was still under duress, real wages were still contracting, and financial markets revolted again. By February 1995, Italian spreads had gone back up to 480 basis points. In the spring of 1995, the pressures came to a boiling point and the lira was once again devalued versus the deutschemark, suddenly plunging by an additional 20% or so. After this painful adjustment, real wage growth moved back into positive territory, the current account deficit morphed into a surplus, and the economy recovered. Moreover, thanks to the previous wave of fiscal austerity and the rebound of the economy, the government's primary balance, which stood at a deficit of nearly 4% of GDP in 1987, hit a 5% surplus by 1998. Chart 25Domestic Demand Never Recovered From Financial Crisis So why is this experience so important? Today, Italy already runs a large current account surplus of 2.5% of GDP. But unlike in the 1990s, this improvement reflects first and foremost a contraction in imports, itself the symptom of an ill domestic economy. However, like in the early 1990s, the Italian economy remains tired. Real GDP is still 7% below its 2008 peak, while domestic demand continues to linger at a stunning 8.5% below its pre-GFC levels (Chart 25). Real wages are contracting at a 1.4% pace as the unemployment rate remains more than 2.5% above the OECD's estimate of NAIRU. Real estate prices, after having contracted from 2012 to 2016, are only growing in the low single digits. Capex generally is also tepid. This situation suggests that Italy needs even easier monetary policy than what it is getting from the ECB. As the argument goes, if Italy were to devalue its currency today, it would be able to boost its exports, ease domestic monetary conditions, and create the ideal circumstances for generating growth. Moreover, to push the argument to its extreme - something populist politicians are prone to do - Italy should ditch the euro and re-dominate its debt in lira. The Bank of Italy could then monetize this debt to keep interest rates low. Since Italy runs a primary fiscal surplus of 1.4% of GDP, Italy does not need to access the debt market for a few years, and thus it would be irrelevant if it loses access to the market. In other words, outside of the euro, a world of Chianti and creamy cannolis awaits the Italians. ... Well, Maybe Not If this seems too nice to be true, that is because it is. The exit-and-devalue narrative misses the point that financial markets and conditions matter a great deal. The problem with this story is the banking sector. The Italian banking sector is presently saddled with NPLs of €330bn, representing 74% of the banking system's capital and reserves (Chart 26). In and of itself, this is a big problem. However, it is a manageable one, especially with the backstops created by European institutions, notably the support of the ECB. However, without Europe's backstop, this debt load becomes a lot harder to manage. And that's only part of the problem. A deeper issue is the large holdings of treasury bonds (BTPs) of Italian banks. Currently, Italian banks hold 10% of their assets in BTPs, an amount equivalent to 90% of their capital and reserves (Chart 27). In 2011, when the Euro Area crisis was raging, Italian 10-year yields hit 7%, or a spread of more than 500 basis points over German bunds. This was equivalent to an implied probability of breakup - as estimated by Dhaval Joshi who writes our European Investment Strategy sister service - of 20% over the subsequent five years (Chart 28).10 Chart 26Italian Banks Carry Loads Of Bad Loans Chart 27Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs Chart 28Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up Threat Now, if Italy comes to be governed by Beppe Grillo's M5S, markets will move fast to discount an eventual referendum on Italy's euro membership - even if only a non-binding and consultative referendum, which would still have a powerful political effect.11 In this environment, it is unlikely that the ECB would support Italian assets. The ECB has already played an active role in Italian politics. It was a September 2011 letter by Mario Draghi and Jean-Claude Trichet that prompted the resignation of Berlusconi in November 2011. It was only after Italian policymakers committed to structural reforms that Draghi was willing to utter his famous "whatever it takes" pledge of ECB support. There is practically no chance that the ECB would extend such a guarantee to an M5S-led government looking to play chicken with the Euro Area and default on Italian debt. Chart 29A Drop In Credit Impulse Would Herald Recession This is why the situation could become nasty, and fast. With only 53% of Italians in favor of the euro, pricing in a 50% probability of Italy leaving the Euro Area would result in BTP-bund spreads of around 900 basis points! In the process, Italian bonds could lose 40% to 50% of their value - assuming that German bunds rally on risk aversion flows - which would result in a potential 35% to 45% hit to Italian banks' capital and reserves. Even if markets remained relatively calm, and BTP prices only fell by 25% to 30%, investors would discount bank capital by around 25%. With the large overhang of NPLs, Italian banks would be for all intent and purposes insolvent. We already expect the Italian credit impulse to become a drag on Italian growth in 2018, but if banks are threatened with insolvency as a result of political dynamics, this same credit impulse is likely to fall at rates not experienced since the GFC. This would result in yet another recession in Italy (Chart 29). Like in Greece in 2015, we would expect that this economic pain would prompt Italian voters to rethink their inclination to leave the Euro Area. In other words, the mere thought of exiting the Euro Area would bring forward the cost of such a strategy, giving voters essentially a preview of their future pain. Moreover, with 45% of BTPs held in private hands outside of Italy, and Italy's foreign debt hanging at 126% of GDP, Europeans outside of Italy have a lot of Italian exposure. This suggests that the financial channel of transmission would cause stress in the European banking sector outside of Italy as well. As a result, in all likelihood, this threat would prompt the return of dovish language by the ECB that could weigh on the euro. The fall in the euro would also nullify Italians' need to exit the Eurozone. Even if the scenario above looks remote, the euro could fall as soon as markets begin discounting an M5S victory. For example, in Canada, the Parti Quebecois won the 1994 election promising a referendum on the question of Quebec independence. As a result of that electoral victory, the loonie quickly dipped by 6%. A move back to EUR/USD 1.05 in case of a Beppe Grillo victory thus sounds reasonable as the market would quickly move to discount some probability of an eventual euro referendum in Italy. Bottom Line: The mere suggestion of a referendum on the euro in Italy would have immediate market consequences. The result would be the almost instantaneous insolvency of large portions of the country's banking system, the loss of ECB support, deposit flight, and an almost certain recession. The relationship between politics, markets, and the economy is therefore dynamic, with non-linear outcomes. As markets discount a higher probability of Italian Euro Area exit, voters will discount a higher probability of non-optimal economic outcomes. As such, we highly doubt that Italian voters - who remember, are only flirting with Euroskepticism - would commit to a future outside of the Euro Area. What If Italy Says Arrivederci? What if we have misjudged Italian voters and they vote to exit the Euro Area regardless of the costs? Based on the IMF's External Sector Report's Individual Economy Assessments, the Italian real effective exchange rate is overvalued by around 25% against Germany alone and around 15% against a GDP-weighted average of Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands, and Belgium. However, these amounts grossly underestimate the potential fall in the lira. These estimates are based on competitiveness measures alone, and they do not take into account the negative domestic economic developments associated with falling BTP prices and impairments to banks' balance sheets. Such economic malaise would prompt a massive easing of policy by the newly empowered Bank of Italy, which would also weigh on the lira. Additionally, the Bank of Italy would have little credibility. This would be doubly so in a M5S-led government intent on pursuing unorthodox policy choices. Historically, Italy has been tolerant of elevated inflation, which means that investors would likely bid up inflation protection on Italian assets, a process that would weigh on Italian real interest rates. Additionally, Italian households and businesses would likely ratchet up their own inflation expectations. As a result, this would drive Italian inflation higher and prompt even more downward pressure on real rates. This is the perfect recipe for a downward spiral in the lira against the euro. In this kind of environment, the lira could fall 75% against the euro. Would Italy become a trade champion with this magnitude of currency devaluation? Doubtful. As we have mentioned, Italy's competitiveness problems are not just a function of domestic labor costs relative to those of the rest of the Euro Area. They also reflect the fact that Italy has not moved up the value chain and is competing head-to-head with EM nations that have a much lower cost base. Additionally, the purpose of the euro was to prevent precisely the kind of competitive currency devaluation that plagued Europe in the post-war period. If Italy ditches the euro and devalues its currency by 50% or more, then the other European nations are likely to punish Italy with tariffs, defeating one of the key reasons to re-introduce the lira in the first place. The last thing Europeans would want to establish is a precedent of a major European economy massively devaluing against its Common Market peers for economic gain. This would be the undoing of not just the Euro Area, but European integration itself. In fact, Italy is contractually obligated - as is every EU member state other than Denmark and the U.K. - to obtain EMU membership under the Maastricht Treaty that establishes the European Union. While such a contractual obligation is irrelevant in the face of a sovereign nation's decision to abrogate an international treaty, it does give Italy's EU peers the legal cover to evict Italy from the Common Market should it break its Maastricht pledges. What about the dynamics of the euro itself? After all, without its weakest major member, the Euro Area will be stronger and the euro will become more competitive. However, the early 1990s experience is once again instructive. During the first phase of devaluation of the lira from 1992 to 1994, the deutschemark too came under pressure. This pressure also reflected the fact that the USD was rising between Q3 1992 and the beginning of 1994. However, by early 1995 the deutschmark had recouped all its loss versus the USD (Chart 30). We would expect similar dynamics to be at play, and again, a lot will depend on the dollar's trend. We expect the dollar index (DXY) to peak in 2018 around 108-110, or a bit more than 10% above current levels. This would hurt the euro. Moreover, the likely need for a dovish ECB to ease the blow to the European banking system (from potentially large losses on any Italian assets) would add to the downward pressure on the euro. As a result, an Italian exit should result in a fall to EUR/USD 0.9. However, this would represent a massive buying opportunity. The euro would be extremely cheap, and the economy would ultimately handle the Italian shock (Chart 31). Chart 30Lira Devaluation Temporarily Dragged Down The Deutschemark Chart 31An Italian-Inspired Drop In The Euro Would Present A Buying Opportunity Additionally, the pain that Italy would incur as it faced currency collapse, runaway inflation, and loss of market access to the EU Common Market should act as a strong deterrent for future Euro Area exit attempts. As such, while the probability of Italy's Euro Area exit may be higher than zero, the probability of any subsequent exits is essentially zero. We would therefore expect any euro selloff to be violent but brief. Chart 32Italian Public Debt: Stuck In Muck Bottom Line: We doubt Italy will ever leave the euro. In all likelihood, the economic pain caused by the mere thought of a referendum would be enough to deter Italians from voting for what would amount to economic suicide. Instead, we would expect Italy to muddle through: its public debt dynamics will worsen, but it will not implode. The IMF expects the government debt-to-GDP ratio to fall toward 125% of GDP by 2022 (Chart 32). We think this is too optimistic. It relies on a big drop in the private sector's investment-saving gap. We think that Italy's entrenched productivity deficit and lack of investment opportunities south of the Alps will ensure that savings remain in excess of investment by a similar degree as today. This would cause the public debt-to-GDP ratio to move toward 140% of GDP by the middle of next decade. This is not a great scenario, but it is not a catastrophe either. In exchange for modest reforms, the ECB would continue to support Italy with dovish monetary policy and unfettered access to emergency liquidity. As a result, we expect European interest rates to remain slightly below what average Eurozone numbers would justify. As such, we continue to anticipate no hike in the ECB's repo rate for the foreseeable future. This, along with greater labor market slack in Europe than the U.S., underpins our view that EUR/USD will ultimately weaken slightly below parity. Investment Conclusions All other things being equal, currency devaluation is a valuable reflationary tool. In Italy's case, however, there are two impediments to using it. First, Italy has lost competitiveness precisely because it relied on the FX lever in the past. Its governance, education, and economic institutions have atrophied as domestic interest groups favored protecting themselves against creative destruction. Second, when it comes to politics, "all other things are rarely equal." It is highly unlikely that the rest of Europe would idly stand back while Italy switched to the lira and devalued it against the euro. This is for three reasons: First, it would set a dangerous precedent for other EU member states if Italy, the Euro Area's third-largest economy and the world's eighth largest, was allowed to reflate via competitive devaluation. Second, it is unlikely that Euro Area peers would accept Italy's devaluation amidst a globally low growth context where export market share is already tough to come by. Third, Italy's government would likely be led by populist, anti-establishment policymakers who would represent a domestic political threat to Italy's European neighbors. As such, it would be in the interest of the rest of Europe to ensure that a M5S-led Italy collapsed after leaving the Euro Area, and then begged to re-enter the core European club. The investment conclusions from the analysis above are very state dependent and represent a playbook for investors going forward. Right now, with the probability of an outright M5S victory low, our base case scenario remains unchanged. The euro will weaken by mid-2018 to slightly below parity as the ECB will maintain a more dovish policy stance than the Fed. European equities are likely to continue to outperform U.S. equities. However, if Beppe Grillo manages to eke out a majority in 2018 or later, investors might be in for a bumpy ride. The euro's fall from grace is likely to be much swifter and European assets could suffer a period of volatility and underperformance relative to the U.S. Ultimately, European stocks will resume their upward relative trajectory as any Italian referendum is likely to result in Italy staying in the euro. Finally, in the highly unlikely case that Italy votes to leave the Euro Area, the euro could plunge to EUR/USD 0.9; European assets, banks especially, could suffer greatly against their U.S. counterparts; and bund yields would likely fall below 0%. The lira would fall by 75% against the euro and Italian bonds would suffer losses north of 50%, in local currency terms. As Italy plunged to its post-Euro Area Inferno, however, we would expect European assets to represent the buying opportunity of a lifetime. Italy's fall from grace would only tighten European integration going forward. 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see OECD, "Economic Surveys: Italy 2017," available at oecd.org; and Sara Calligaris, et al.,"Italy's Productivity Conundrum," European Commission, dated May 2016, available at ec.europa.eu. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The VAT revenue ratio (VRR) is defined as the ratio between the actual value-added tax (VAT) revenue collected and the revenue that would theoretically be raised if VAT was applied at the standard rate to all final consumption. This ratio gives an indication of the efficiency and the broadness of the tax base of the VAT regime in a country compared to a standard norm. 6 Please see World Bank Group and PwC, "Paying Taxes 2017," available at www.pwc.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 3, 2011, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 A minority government would, however, have to obtain a confidence vote in both chambers of the Italian Parliament in order to govern, as per Article 94 of the Italian Constitution. 10 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats And Opportunities In The Bond Market," dated April 7, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 11 According to Article 75 of the Italian Constitution, referendums are not permitted in the "case of tax, budget, amnesty and pardon laws, in authorization or ratification of international treaties." Nonetheless, a Euroskeptic government could still call for a non-binding referendum on the euro. While its result would not create a legal reality for Italian exit from the Euro Area, it would create a political one. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... Why Nations Fail - The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty Why Nations Fail is as much about why nations succeed as why they fail.1 World history is replete with examples of the latter, whereas the former is a rarity even today. Economist Daren Acemoglu and political scientist James A. Robinson seek to answer why that is so. Distilling the book to its bottom line is challenging. There is no neat theory of how the world works. Instead, the authors tell their story through case studies replete with "critical junctures," "path dependency," and "small differences." Acemoglu and Robinson do not peddle in false parsimony, but rather try to develop a narrative that explains a complex process. While they never make the point explicitly, the authors define success as a combination of geopolitical relevance (power), escaping the "middle income trap" (prosperity), and some level of equality (escaping poverty). A country that achieves some semblance of all three, and maintains it for a long time, is "successful." At the heart of successful economies is the process of creative destruction. And at the heart of each example of failed states - from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union - are impediments to such destruction. The recipe to success therefore boils down to "having an idea, starting a firm, and getting a loan." The discipline of economics - and its disciples at the IMF and the World Bank - would appear to be more than capable of taking it from there. But they are not. Why? For Acemoglu and Robinson, the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against economics and its practitioners. Armies of developmental economists have failed to bring billions of people out of poverty and many of their suggestions have in fact been detrimental. Economics is incapable of resolving the problem of development because it "has gained the title Queen of the Social Sciences by choosing solved political problems as its domain."2 And societal development is a political problem. The first such political problem that Acemoglu and Robinson attempt to explain is the paradox of development. Why don't leaders always choose prosperity? History is replete with examples of how elites actively subvert creative destruction, which is paradoxical given that it would make their societies wealthier and more powerful in the collective sense. From the patricians of Rome, elites of Venice, the szlachta of Poland, the samurai of Japan, to the landed aristocracy of England prior to the Glorious Revolution, those in positions of power consciously limit economic progress. The answer lies in political institutions. When political power is exclusive, unchecked, and limited to a select-group, its value increases. The more power one gains, the greater the political, economic, and societal rewards one can extract from it. The reverse is true when political institutions are inclusive, checked, and open to upwardly mobile entrepreneurs. In that case, the value of political power declines and thus elites are less likely to expend resources to protect their access to it. As such, the key conditions for economic development are inclusive political institutions that allow non-elites to petition the government, keep it in check through an independent judiciary, call it to account with free media, and eventually participate in governing directly. These inclusive political institutions are, in turn, more likely to give rise to inclusive economic institutions, which enshrine the process of creative destruction at the heart of the country's political and economic system. Why is it so difficult to engineer development? Because most trained economists working for international developmental agencies are focused on changing economic institutions. They take the politics of a country as an a priori. However, it is politics that determines economics, not the other way around. A powerful example in the book is the process of de-colonization in Africa. Despite a dramatic change of political leadership, post-colonial governments preserved the extractive economic institutions set up by their former colonial masters. Why? Because they never bothered to truly enfranchise their citizens. In other words, they kept the exclusive political institutions of colonialism largely in place. Once that decision was made, it was inevitable that extractive economic institutions would remain in place as well. In fact, in most examples, economic institutions became more extractive and political institutions more exclusive. Acemoglu and Robinson published their book in 2012, at the height of the "Beijing Consensus" narrative. It is easy to see how most of their examples are applicable to China today, particularly the chapter dealing with the decline of the Soviet Union. The message is that rapid economic growth under exclusive political institutions is possible, but unsustainable. China will therefore either evolve its political institutions or face the fate of the Soviet Union. We generally tend to agree with this analysis, but time horizons are difficult to gauge. For example, Acemoglu and Robinson themselves admit that the Soviet Union grew rapidly for 40 years before it faced limits and 60 years before it collapsed. By those measures, Chinese policymakers may still have decades before crisis forces their hand. A much more interesting question, one that Acemoglu and Robinson spend very little time discussing, is what happens to societies where elites capture political institutions and alter them from inclusive to exclusive? Two examples they detail briefly are the Roman and Venetian republics. In both, relatively inclusive political systems with inclusive economic institutions were captured by rapacious elites who then proceeded to limit access to both with the particular intention of limiting creative destruction. For global investors, this is the process that will have greater implications than the run-of-the-mill collapse of authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes. The entire global financial system today depends on the domestic stability of countries like the U.S. and the U.K., perhaps the most successful political systems in the world. And yet, voters in both are itching for radical change as a reaction to elite overproduction and growing income inequality. On one hand, voter discontent could lead to a messy political process, if not an outright revolution, that reestablishes the inclusive institutions that have underpinned their prosperity and power for centuries. On the other, it could lead to the collapse of the inclusive republic and the rise of an exclusive empire. 1 Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Business, 2012). 2 Economist Abba Lerner, quoted at the end of Chapter 2 by the authors. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The European Central Bank's ultra-dovish policies have depressed the value of the euro and, by extension, boosted German manufacturing. Germany has diffused its inflationary pressures by outsourcing jobs and production to central Europe. As a result of this and labor shortages, wages in central Europe are rising rapidly, and inflation is accelerating. The Polish and Czech central banks will be forced to hike rates sooner than later. Hungary's central bank will lag behind. Go long the PLN versus the IDR. Stay long the CZK versus the euro and the PLN against the HUF. Feature Inflation in central Europe is picking up and will continue to rise (Chart I-1). The main driver is surging wage growth in central Europe. Considerable acceleration in wage growth, in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic signifies genuine inflationary pressures that could very well spread. Based on this, our primary investment recommendation is to be long the PLN and CZK versus the euro and/or EM currencies. Labor Shortages There is a shortage of labor in the central European manufacturing economies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This partially reflects similar trends in Germany and its increased use of outsourcing to central European countries. Escalating wage growth (Chart I-2) in central European economies denotes widening labor shortages. Chart I-1Inflation Is Rising In CE3 Chart I-2Labor Shortages = Higher Wages Indeed, our proxy for labor shortages - calculated as the number of job vacancies divided by the number of unemployed looking for a job - has surged of late across all central European countries (Chart I-3). The same measure for Germany is at a 27-year high (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B illustrate both components of the ratio: the number of job vacancies has skyrocketed to all-time highs and the number of unemployed people has dropped to multi-decade lows as well. Chart I-3Labor Is Scarce In CE3 And Germany Chart I-4AA Breakdown Of Labor Shortage Proxy Chart I-4BA Breakdown Of Labor Shortage Proxy Importantly, it is not the case that labor shortages are occurring because people are discouraged and giving up on their search for work. The participation rate for all these countries has risen to its highest level since data have been available. In brief, a rising share of the population in these countries is either working or actively looking for a job. (Chart I-5). Finally, their working age population is shrinking (Chart I-6), with Germany being the exception because of immigration inflows (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Chart I-5Labor Participation Rate Is ##br##High In CE3 And Germany... Chart I-6...While Working Age ##br##Population Is Declining In CE3 Robust labor demand has been occurring in central Europe because of the ongoing manufacturing boom in the region. Given central Europe's extensive supply chain linkages to German manufacturing, the artificial cheapness of the euro that the ECB engineered has boosted the German economy and by extension central Europe's manufacturing boom. Germany: A Cheap Currency And Export Boom The ECB's ultra-accommodative policy has suppressed the value of the euro, and caused German exports to mushroom (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-7ECB Policies Have Been ##br##A Boon For German Exports A cheap common European currency has boosted Germany's manufacturing competitiveness and has led to rising demand for German exports. An overflow of manufacturing orders in Germany in turn has led to labor shortages in central Europe via increased German outsourcing. Currency appreciation is the conventional economic adjustment in a country with a flexible exchange rate and an export boom coupled with a large current account surplus. However, this has not occurred in Germany in recent years. This is because of the ECB's ultra-easy policies. The euro has depreciated even as the German and euro area overall current account has mushroomed (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Since the currency has not been allowed to appreciate in nominal terms, the real effective exchange rate will inevitably appreciate via inflation - rising wages initially and broader inflation increases later. In our opinion, the best currency valuation measure is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. Our basis is that this measure reflects both changes in productivity and wages - i.e. it reflects genuine competitiveness. Chart I-8 demonstrates Germany's real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs in absolute terms compared to other advanced manufacturing competitors like the U.S., Japan, Switzerland and Sweden. Based on this measure, it is clear that Germany continues to enjoy a significant comparative advantage on the manufacturing world stage among advanced manufacturing economies. It is only less competitive versus Japan. Chart I-8Germany Is Very Competitive Based On Real Effective Exchange Rates Bottom Line: The ECB's ultra-dovish policies have depressed the value of the euro and boosted German manufacturing. This has boosted central European manufacturing and demand for labor. Germany Is Passing The Inflation Baton To Central Europe Despite a historic low in the unemployment rate and ongoing labor shortages, German wages have not risen by much (Chart I-9). Our hunch is that German companies faced with some labor shortages have been increasing their use of outsourcing. Central European economy's export to Germany have boomed, especially after the euro started depreciating circa 2010 (Chart I-10). Chart I-9German Wage Inflation Is Muted Chart I-10Growing Dependence On ##br##Germany For CE3 Growth Being the lower marginal cost producer in the region, central European economies have benefited from German competitiveness and the cheap euro. Outsourcing is economically justified because German wages are still four times higher than in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. (Chart I-11). Even though Germany's productivity is higher than in central Europe, manufacturing wages adjusted for productivity are still higher than in central European economies (Chart I-12). Therefore, it still makes sense for German businesses to outsource more to lower-cost producers in central Europe. Chart I-11CE3 Wage Bill Is Cheaper ##br##Than That Of Germany... Chart I-12...Even After Adjusting ##br##For Productivity Faced with strong orders as well as a lack of available labor, businesses in central European countries have been competing for labor by raising wages. Unlike in Germany, manufacturing and overall wages in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have recently surged (Chart I-2 on page 3). Wages are rising more so in Hungary and the Czech Republic since they have smaller labor pools compared to Poland. Notably, wage growth has exceeded productivity growth, and unit labor costs have been rising rather rapidly (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Rapidly In CE3 Higher unit labor costs amid rising output denote genuine inflationary pressures. Producers faced with rising unit labor costs and shrinking profit margins will attempt to raise prices. Given that income and demand are strong, they will partially succeed - meaning genuine inflationary pressures in central Europe are likely to intensify. Since the beginning of the ECB's accommodative monetary policy, Germany has been able to avoid the fallout of higher wages because it has been able to outsource a portion of its production to other countries, namely central Europe. The problem is that the supply of labor in central Europe is now drying out, so its price will naturally rise. If Germany did not have the labor pool of CE3 available as a resource, German wage inflation would be significantly higher by now because companies would have been forced to employ Germans more rapidly, paying more in labor costs. Bottom Line: Germany has diffused its inflationary pressures by outsourcing jobs and production to central Europe. Overheating In Central Europe Various inflation measures are showing signs that inflation is escalating in CE3. With rising wages and unit labor costs, these trends will continue. Consequently, output gaps in central European economies are closing or have closed, warranting further increases in inflation (Chart I-14). Money and credit growth are booming, which is further facilitating the rise in inflation (Chart I-15). Finally, employment growth is very robust and retail sales are strong (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Inflation Will Remain On An Up Trend In CE3 Chart I-15Money & Credit Will Facilitate Path To Inflation Chart I-16Employment & Retail Sales Growth Is Robust Bottom Line: A cheap euro has supercharged German demand for central European labor at the time when the pool of available labor in CE3 is shrinking. This has generated genuine inflationary pressures in the region. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations 1. The Polish and Czech central banks will hike rates sooner than later. This will boost their currencies. The Hungarian central bank will lag and the HUF will underperform its regional peers. CE3 currencies are set to appreciate, especially the CZK and the PLN: stay long the PLN versus the HUF, and the CZK versus the euro. We recommended going long PLN/HUF and long CZK/EUR on September 28 2016 due to stronger growth and rising inflationary pressures. This week's analysis reinforces our conviction on these trades. In the face of rising inflationary pressures, the Czech National Bank (CNB) and the National Bank of Poland (NBP) will be less reluctant to tighten policy than the National Bank of Hungary (NBH) and the ECB. This will drive the PLN and CZK higher relative to the EUR and HUF. The NBH is unlikely to tighten policy while credit growth is still weak. Given strong political pressure for faster economic growth, our bias is that the NBH is more interested in ending six years of non-existent credit growth rather than containing inflation. The ECB is unlikely to tighten policy either, given the still-poor structural growth outlook among the peripheral European economies. A new currency trade: go long the PLN versus the IDR, while closing our short IDR/long HUF trade with a 9% loss. This is based on our expectations that central European currencies will appreciate versus their EM peers, and the PLN will do better than the HUF. 2. Relative growth trajectory favors Central European economies relative to other EM countries. Such economic outperformance and resulting currency appreciation will be a tailwind to CE3 equity performance versus EM in common currency terms. Continue overweighting CE3 equity markets within the EM benchmark. We recommended equity traders go long CE3 banks / short euro area banks on April 6, 2016. This position has not worked out due to a significant rally in euro area banks since Brexit. However, euro area banks remain less profitable and overleveraged compared to their central European counterparts. As such they will likely underperform in the coming months. 3. In fixed income, we have the following positions: Overweight Hungarian sovereign credit within an EM sovereign credit portfolio. Long Polish and Hungarian 5-year local currency bonds / short South African and Turkish domestic bonds. A new trade: Receive 1-year Hungarian swap rates / Pay 10-year swap rates. As structural inflationary pressures become rampant in the Hungarian economy, the market will start pricing in rate hikes further down the curve, and the yield curve will consequently steepen (Chart I-17). Polish and Czech bonds offer better value relative to bunds as investors stand to gain from currency appreciation as well as an attractive spread. (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Bet On Yield Curve ##br##Steepening In Hungary Chart I-18Polish & Czech Bond Offer Value ##br##Relative To German Bunds Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Neutral The S&P hypermarkets index has been a stalwart performer YTD, outshining both the broad consumer staples universe and the overall market by a wide margin. However; this impressive run-up is unsustainable. Three main headwinds suggest that some caution is warranted: soft pricing power, likely further aggravated by new German competitors expanding in/entering the U.S. market, the ongoing and recently escalated assault from online retailers and finally, improved consumer spending. These factors imply that profit margins will remain under chronic pressure, but concerns could become more acute on a cyclical basis. Consumer goods import prices have surged in recent months (second panel), and the depreciating U.S. dollar is likely to sustain this uptrend. Cutthroat competition means that retailers will likely absorb these rising costs, to the detriment of profit margins. Further, livelier consumer spending would warn of additional headwinds (third panel), as higher incomes boost the incentive for consumers to "trade up" and shop at higher ticket stores. Netting it out, we recommend booking modest profits and downgrading exposure in the S&P hypermarkets index to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HYPC - WMT, COST.

Neutral One quarter ago, we posited that the consolidation phase in the broad consumer discretionary sector restored value and created an attractive entry point and an upgrade in the S&P restaurants sub-index provided an attractive way to execute that thesis. This view has largely played out, as restaurant shares have bested the market by double digits since March 20th. We doubt there is any more upside left. The National Restaurant Association's Restaurant Performance Index fell to the boom/bust 100 line and downside momentum has accelerated (second panel). Leading indicators of profit margins have also eroded. An uptick in commodity input costs and multi-decade highs in the industry's wage bill, which are running at close to 10% annual growth, stand in marked contrast with soft industry pricing power. Our restaurants profit margin gauge captures all of these forces and warns that a squeeze looms (third panel). In sum, the playable rally in the S&P restaurants index has run its course and a profit recovery is fully discounted in frothy valuations. We recommend booking profits of 11% in the S&P restaurants index and moving to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5REST - MCD, SBUX, YUM, DRI, CMG.

Highlights The Fed Is Right: Wage growth and inflation increase as growth rebounds in the second half of the year. Treasury yields move higher, the yield curve steepens and TIPS breakevens widen. This is the most likely scenario. The Fed Capitulates: Inflation fails to rebound but the Fed responds by signaling a shallower rate hike path. Increased inflation compensation offsets lower real yields, leaving long-maturity nominal yields unchanged. Meanwhile, wider TIPS breakevens cause the yield curve to steepen. This is the second most likely scenario. Policy Mistake: Inflation fails to rebound and the Fed continues to tighten. Nominal yields move lower and tighter TIPS breakevens cause the yield curve to flatten. This is the least likely scenario. Feature Chart 1Pricing A Policy Mistake Rather than go out of her way to assure markets that the Fed will respond to recent weakness in core inflation, Janet Yellen insisted at last week's post-FOMC press conference that low inflation will prove transitory. The Fed decided to plough ahead with its second rate hike of 2017, while maintaining its median projection for one more before the year is out. The Treasury market remains skeptical. Long-maturity nominal yields continued to decline following the FOMC meeting while short-maturity yields increased (Chart 1). The resultant curve flattening - the 2/10 Treasury slope is back down to 84 basis points - signals that the market is pricing-in an overly aggressive pace of Fed tightening. Consistent with this message, the drop in long-dated yields continues to be concentrated in the inflation component while real yields - which are linked to the expected pace of Fed rate hikes - remain firm (Chart 1, bottom panel). We were surprised by Yellen's reluctance to throw the market a bone, but we actually agree with her assessment of the fundamentals underpinning inflation. Our base case scenario is that inflation will soon resume its gradual uptrend, causing the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and TIPS breakevens to widen. Whether or not this base case scenario plays out, it is clear that the next few inflation prints and how the Fed responds to them will dictate the path for Treasury yields between now and the end of the year. We see three possible scenarios, and this week we examine each in turn, in order of most likely to least likely. Specifically, we would characterize Scenario 1 as our base case scenario, Scenario 2 as unlikely and Scenario 3 as a remote tail risk. Scenario 1: The Fed is Right The Fed is taking a gamble betting against the markets, but as we have argued in the past several reports,1 we think this gamble will soon pay off. In fact, it is quite likely that weak core inflation during the past three months is nothing more than a lagged response to last year's deceleration in economic growth. A deceleration that has already reversed. The year-over-year change in core CPI tends to lag year-over-year GDP growth by about 18 months. Meanwhile, GDP growth has already rebounded and leading indicators such as financial conditions, the BCA Beige Book Monitor and the BCA Composite New Orders Indicator, all point to a further acceleration (Chart 2). More importantly, it would be very unusual for core inflation to trend lower while the unemployment rate is falling and wage growth is increasing (Chart 3). This Phillips Curve relationship between the labor market and prices is the basis for the Fed's belief that inflation will resume its uptrend, and it has worked quite well since 1995.2 Chart 2Inflation Set To Rebound Chart 3Fundamentals Suggest Inflation Will Rise Further, our U.S. Investment Strategy3 service has calculated that it does not take much growth for the unemployment rate to continue its descent (Chart 4). Even a monthly increase of 130k in nonfarm payrolls is sufficient to bring the unemployment rate down, assuming the labor force participation rate stays flat. Monthly payroll gains are already averaging 162k so far this year, and our model suggests that number is poised to accelerate (Chart 5). Chart 4The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios ##br##The Unemployment Rate Will Keep Falling Chart 5BCA Employment##br## Model What Could Cause Inflation To Fall? A Rising Participation Rate. While labor market fundamentals support gradually rising inflation, it follows that inflation would likely fall if the unemployment rate were to increase. This is not a likely scenario, but it could occur if there is either a severe slowdown in payroll growth, or a surge of re-entrants into the labor market, leading to an increase in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate fell from 65.9% at the end of 2007 to 62.8% in June 2014. As of today it stands at 62.7%, not far off its mid-2014 level (Chart 6). A paper published by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) in July 20144 attributed 1.6% of the decline since 2007 to the ageing of the population, another 0.5% of the decline to normal cyclical factors and left the remaining 1% of the drop unexplained. The demographic effect is not about to reverse. Also, normal cyclical variation in the participation rate is linked to changes in the unemployment rate itself (Chart 6, panel 2). With the unemployment rate already low, it is likely that any normal cyclical decline in the participation rate has already been unwound. It is the remaining 1% residual decline in the participation rate that is tougher to pin down. The CEA offers two possible explanations for that residual 1% drop. The first is that it is the result of the downtrend in the prime age (25-54) participation rate that pre-dated the Great Recession (Chart 7). Prior to the recession, this downtrend had been partially offset by increasing participation among those aged 55+, but that latter trend has leveled off since 2010. If the 1% residual is the result of this longer-run trend in prime age participation, a trend possibly driven by technological advancement and the outsourcing of jobs overseas, then it is unlikely to reverse. Chart 6Can The Part Rate ##br##Bounce Back? Chart 7Secular Downtrend In Prime-Age ##br##Participation The second possible explanation is that the extra 1% is accounted for by the large increase in long-term unemployment that followed the Great Recession (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels). There is an observable correlation between the participation rate and the average duration of unemployment. If this correlation holds, and the duration of unemployment falls back to pre-crisis levels, then the participation rate could increase in the near term. However, there is also a school of thought that says the longer a person is out of the labor force the less likely it is they will ever return.5 If this turns out to be an accurate description of the dynamic between long-term unemployment and the participation rate, then it suggests that the permanent damage from the Great Recession has already been done. Even if the average duration of unemployment falls from current levels, its correlation with the participation rate would likely break down. If we assume that the participation rate rises 0.5% during the next year, then it would take payroll gains of more than 200k per month to keep the unemployment rate flat. That is too high a hurdle. While a much higher participation rate is not our base case, mathematically it is possible to envision a scenario where increasing participation causes the unemployment rate to rise, keeping a lid on wage growth and inflation in the process. Bottom Line: Overall, we agree with the Fed that wage growth and inflation will increase as growth rebounds in the second half of the year. This will very likely cause Treasury yields to move higher, the yield curve to steepen and TIPS breakevens to widen. Indications that the average duration of unemployment is rapidly falling and/or that the labor force participation rate is rising could lead us to change our view. Scenario 2: The Fed Capitulates Chart 8A Dovish Fed Can Boost Breakevens Now let's imagine that U.S. growth remains steady, the labor market continues to tighten, yet core PCE inflation is still close to 1.5% by the time the Fed meets in September. In this scenario we would expect the Fed to send a much more dovish message to markets than it did last week. Specifically, we would expect the Fed to lower its forecasted rate hike path, signaling that no further rate hikes are likely in 2017. What sort of impact would this have on the yield curve? Long-maturity real yields, which are highly correlated with rate hike expectations, would almost certainly fall. However, if the Fed sends a sufficiently aggressive signal that it is willing to take action to support inflation, then it is conceivable that the long-maturity compensation for inflation protection could rise, offsetting some of the decline in real yields. In last week's report we noted how this exact scenario played out in 2011/12.6 Regression analysis shows that the 10-year real yield has historically moved about half as much as our 24-month Fed Funds Discounter (Chart 8), with the exception of the period surrounding the 2013 taper tantrum. If we assume the historical beta of 0.5 holds, then even if the market starts to discount no Fed rate hikes during the next two years and our discounter falls from its current level of 42 bps to zero, the 10-year real yield would have only 21 bps of downside. The current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 1.67%, and would only need to return to 1.88% to completely offset the decline in real yields from the Fed being completely priced out. This does not seem like a high bar (Chart 8, top panel). Bottom Line: If core PCE inflation remains close to 1.5% by the time the Fed meets in September, then we would expect the Fed to respond more aggressively by signaling a shallower path of rate hikes. In this scenario it is likely that wider TIPS breakevens would offset the impact from lower real yields, leaving nominal Treasury yields close to unchanged. Scenario 3: A Policy Mistake A monetary policy mistake in its strongest form would be tightening so aggressively that the slope of the yield curve flattens all the way to zero before inflation has reached the Fed's target. In prior cycles we are used to seeing much higher inflation when the slope of the 2/10 curve is as flat as it is today (Chart 9), which suggests that the market is already starting to discount a premature Fed tightening. If core inflation remains low between now and the September FOMC meeting, and the Fed continues to write-off low inflation as transitory, signaling its intention to stick to its current projected rate hike path, then the market would go further to price-in a policy mistake scenario. The yield curve would flatten and long-maturity nominal yields would fall, led by tighter TIPS breakevens. We still view this as the least likely scenario. The Fed should be concerned about inflation expectations becoming un-anchored to the downside. As we showed in last week's report,7 it is well documented that when inflation expectations become unmoored, the relationship between prices and the labor market is significantly weakened. Further, the longer that actual inflation deviates from target the more likely it becomes that inflation expectations will become un-anchored to the downside. In last week's press conference Janet Yellen said: It is true that some household surveys of inflation expectations have moved down, but overall I wouldn't say that we've seen a broad undermining of inflation expectations.8 That claim is undoubtedly open for interpretation (Chart 10), but the important point is that the longer inflation stays below target, the more likely a "broad undermining of inflation expectations" becomes. We expect the Fed will heed this message from the markets, but after last week's meeting we cannot completely rule out a policy mistake. Chart 9Curve Is Too Flat Versus Inflation Chart 10Still Well Anchored? Bottom Line: If inflation stays low between now and September, but the Fed sticks to its current forward rate guidance, then the market will price-in more of a policy mistake scenario. Nominal yields will fall, led by tighter TIPS breakevens, and the yield curve will flatten. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Reports, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 207, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017 and "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, all available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The post-1995 environment has been characterized by stable inflation expectations. It is well documented that the relationship between labor markets and inflation is much weaker when inflation expectations become un-anchored. We discuss this risk in Scenario #3. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Balancing Act", dated June 12, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/labor_force_participation.pdf 5 http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number3/2015number3.pdf 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20170614.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights Risk Budgeting: We are introducing a more formal risk measurement element to our model global bond portfolio. This is to identify if our individual views are potentially creating too much volatility, in aggregate, but also as a way to express the conviction of our individual recommendations through allocation of a "risk budget". Tracking Error Of Our Portfolio: We are setting our maximum allowable tracking error, or excess volatility of our portfolio versus our benchmark index, at 100 basis points. Our current tracking error is just under ½ of that limit. We estimate that our highest conviction views at the moment - staying below-benchmark on duration risk, overweighting U.S. corporates, underweighting both U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt - contribute nearly 4/5ths of our overall portfolio tracking error. Feature Last September, we introduced a model portfolio framework to Global Fixed Income Strategy.1 This was done to better communicate our investment research into actionable ideas more in line with the day-to-day decisions and trade-offs made by professional bond managers. We followed that up with the addition of performance measurement tools to more accurately track the returns of our model bond portfolio versus a stated benchmark.2 We are now initiating the final piece of our model bond portfolio framework in this Special Report - introducing a risk management component to identify cumulative exposures and guide the relative sizes of our suggested tilts. Our goal is to translate our individual investment recommendations into the language of a "risk budget", i.e. how much of the desired volatility of the portfolio would we suggest placing into any single trade idea. This will allow our readers to apply our proposed tilts - based on how much conviction (i.e. "risk") we allocate to each position - to their own portfolios which may have different risk limits and return expectations. For example, our current recommendation to overweight U.S. corporate debt, both Investment Grade (IG) and High-Yield (HY) represents nearly 1/3 of our estimated total portfolio risk, by far our largest source of potential volatility both in absolute terms and versus our benchmark index (Table 1). Overweighting U.S. corporates, both versus U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents, is one of our highest conviction trades at the moment. A client who may choose to run a lower risk portfolio can still follow our recommendation by placing enough into U.S. corporates so that 33% of the desired portfolio volatility will come from those positions. Table 1Risk Allocation In Our Model Bond Portfolio In the rest of this Special Report, we will discuss some of the various ways to measure fixed income portfolio risk, apply them to our model portfolio, and introduce some measures to monitor our aggregate portfolio volatility. Going forward, we will closely watch our established metrics and position sizes to ensure that the combination of our individual investment recommendations that we discuss on a week-to-week basis does not create a portfolio that is potentially more volatile than desired. Risk Measurement In Fixed Income Portfolios While investors are typically focused on meeting return targets for their portfolios, the other side of the equation - managing portfolio volatility - is often less stressed. This is especially true during bull markets for any asset class. Investors may become complacent if returns meet or exceed their targets when, in fact, excess returns may have actually been earned through overly risky positions that could have easily not worked in the investors' favor. In the current macro environment, where many financial asset prices are at new highs with stretched valuations and with most of the major global central banks incrementally moving towards less accommodative monetary policy stances, risk management should be even more important for investors. Overly concentrated positioning could now lead to considerable portfolio losses, especially if measuring risk with a metric that is flawed or incomplete, which can lead to a false sense of security. With that in mind, we consider some typical risk measurement metrics used by fixed income investors: Duration: Duration is usually the most popular risk metric for fixed income portfolios as it measures interest rate sensitivity. Duration is defined as the percentage change in a portfolio or asset resulting from a one percentage point change in interest rates. While it provides a solid base understanding of interest rate risk, it does make a simplifying assumption that there is a linear relationship between interest rates and bond prices. Value-At-Risk: Value-At-Risk (VaR) is a statistical technique that measures the loss of an investment, or of an entire portfolio, over a certain period with a given level of confidence. However, there are two considerable flaws with this approach. First, the VaR output suggests a portfolio can lose at least X%, it does not actually indicate how big the potential loss could be. Instead, using a measure such as Historical VaR, if a portfolio has a long enough track record, can better quantify potential losses. Second, VaR is highly susceptible to estimation errors. Certain assumptions on correlations and the normality of return distributions can have a substantial impact on VaR readings. Table 2Value At Risk Of Our Benchmark In Table 2, we show the Historical VaR (HVAR) of our benchmark index, calculating the potential monthly loss using data going back to 2005. On that basis, the worst expected monthly loss for our benchmark is -1.6% (using a 95% confidence interval) and -2.1% (using a 99% confidence interval). Tracking Error: Tracking error measures the volatility of excess returns relative to a certain benchmark. It is a standard risk measure used by a typical "real money" bond manager with a benchmark performance index, like a mutual fund. Tracking error does not offer information on alpha generation (i.e. how much you can expect to beat your benchmark based on your current investments), it simply indicates how much more volatile a portfolio is expected to be versus its benchmark. As our model portfolio returns are measured on a relative basis to our stated bond benchmark index, tracking error is quite appropriate as our main risk metric. A Historical Examination Of Our Portfolio When we first created our model portfolio, we also introduced a benchmark index against which we could measure our performance. Our customized benchmark differs from typical multi-sector measures like the Barclays Global Aggregate Index in that it has a broader scope, including sectors that can have credit ratings below investment grade such as High Yield corporates. The benchmark does, however, exclude smaller regions that we only occasionally discuss such as Sweden, Portugal, Norway and New Zealand. These smaller markets offer comparatively poor liquidity and we want our benchmark to be as investible as possible. Nevertheless, our customized benchmark has been highly correlated to the Barclays Global Aggregate Index over the past decade. As our portfolio has not had a full year of return data, its history is quite limited. Still, in our first performance review conducted two months ago, we indicated that our portfolio had been very closely tracking our customized benchmark. We have since increased our positions in our highest conviction views and our tracking error has risen noticeably and now sits at just over 40bps (Chart 1). Within our model portfolio, we are setting an expected excess return target of 100bps per year. That means that we are setting a goal of beating our benchmark index returns by one full percentage point per year. Given that we are measuring our performance versus currency-hedged benchmarks that are primarily rated investment grade or better, 100bps of annual excess return is a reasonable target. We are also setting a limit where the excess return/tracking error ratio should aim to be equal to 1 each year. This is under the simple assumption that we want an equal amount of return over our benchmark for our expected excess volatility versus our benchmark. On that basis, we are setting our tracking error "limit" at 100bps per year. That suggests that our current tracking error is relatively low. However, correlations between the individual components of our benchmark index have been rising over the past couple of years (Chart 2). Therefore, running a relatively low overall level of risk at a time where diversification among the positions within our portfolio is now harder to achieve, and when the valuations on most government bond and credit markets look rich, is prudent. Chart 1Higher Tracking Error, But Still Well Below Our Target Chart 2Correlations Across Fixed Income Sectors Have Been Rising This is another way that we can control the overall riskiness of our model portfolio. Not only by how much of our risk budget (tracking error) that we want to allocate to each of our recommended positions, but also how big of a risk budget do we want to run at any given point in time. If we see more assets trading at cheap valuations, then we could choose to run a higher tracking error than when most assets look expensive. Bottom Line: We are introducing a more formal risk measurement element to our model global bond portfolio. This is to identify if our individual views are potentially creating too much volatility, in aggregate, but also as a way to express the conviction of our individual recommendations through allocation of a "risk budget". We are setting our maximum allowable tracking error, or excess volatility of our portfolio versus our benchmark index, at 100 basis points. Measuring The Contribution To Risk From Our Market Tilts In our model portfolio, we include a wide range of geographies and sectors from the global fixed income universe. Understanding the risk contribution of each position to the overall portfolio provides a clearer picture as to where our potential risks lie, and by how much. To measure the risk contribution of each of our individual recommendations to our overall portfolio volatility, we used the following formula: wA * E CovAB * wB Where W = the weight of any single asset in our portfolio and COV is the covariance between the asset and other assets in the portfolio. As such, an asset's contribution to risk is a function of its weight in the portfolio and its covariance with the other assets. Importantly, since we are measuring our model portfolio performance in terms of excess returns, we examined each position's contribution to risk relative to the benchmark. All calculations begin in late 2005, when return data is available for all of the assets in our portfolio. The results are summarized in Table 1 on Page 1. Our portfolio tilts are based off of our four highest conviction themes. They include: Stronger global growth led by the U.S. The U.S. economy should expand at a faster pace in the latter half of the year on the back of a rebound in consumption and strong capital spending, all supported by solid income growth and easy financial conditions. We have expressed this theme through our overweight allocation to U.S. corporate debt. While our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor is flashing that balance sheets are becoming increasingly strained, easy monetary conditions and an expansionary economic backdrop should continue to support excess returns for U.S. corporates. More Fed rate hikes than expected. We expect U.S. economic and corporate profit growth to remain robust due to accommodative monetary conditions, diminishing slack and resilient consumption. As such, the Fed will continue tightening policy by more than what markets are currently pricing in. This theme is expressed through an underweight position in U.S. Treasuries, which accounts for 17% of our volatility versus 24% for that of the benchmark. This wide spread relative to the benchmark is a substantial source of our tracking error, but one that we are comfortable running given our view that U.S. Treasury yields are too low. Chart 3Realized Bond Volatility Has Been Declining Rising tapering risks in Europe. Our expectation is that the European Central Bank (ECB) will be forced to announce a slower pace (tapering) of bond buying starting next year, given the current robust economic expansion in Europe that is rapidly absorbing spare capacity. An ECB taper announcement is expected to lead to rising longer-term global bond yields, mostly via rising term premia. We are expressing that view in our portfolio through our overall underweight interest rate duration stance. Our current portfolio duration is 5.6 years versus our benchmark duration of 7.0 years. That is a large tilt that represents a significant portion of our tracking error, but given our view that U.S. Treasuries also look overvalued, running a large overall duration underweight does correlate to our conviction level. Rising geopolitical risks and banking sector issues in Italy. Geopolitical risks remain elevated leading up to parliamentary elections in 2018, and Italian banks remain undercapitalized with non-performing loans still in an uptrend. Therefore, we are underweight Italian debt, though this is a smaller deviation of portfolio risk versus our benchmark (around 2%), given the smaller size of Italy in our benchmark. Purely looking at geography and sector selection, our four highest conviction views make up almost 80% of the active portfolio risk that we are "running" in our model portfolio. That number may seem high but, as described earlier, our realized portfolio volatility has been quite low (Chart 3). That suggests that there could be some degree of underlying diversification within our recommended portfolio given lower correlations of certain assets to the rest of the portfolio. This is a topic that we will investigate more deeply in future Weekly Reports. Bottom Line: We estimate that our highest conviction views at the moment - staying below-benchmark on duration risk, overweighting U.S. corporates, underweighting both U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt - contribute nearly 4/5ths of our overall portfolio tracking error. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated April 18 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Table 4

Highlights Rising equity prices, low and falling bond yields and stable credit spreads are all consistent with today's low growth and inflation backdrop, where the Fed can take its time raising rates. The FOMC is looking through the inflation shortfall for now and is sticking with its rate hike plan. Lower oil prices are the key driver of plunging market-based inflation expectations. We expect the Fed to begin to trim its balance sheet later this year, and be a modest negative for Treasury prices. The latest readings on the health of household balance sheet from the Fed's flow of funds accounts reinforce our view that the consumer sector will provide solid support for the U.S. economy through 2017; the student loan debt situation is not a source of financial systemic risk. Feature We first outlined our view that U.S. assets were in a policy sweet spot back in September 2016, noting that the monetary policy sweet spot won't end for risk assets until interest rates climb above the equilibrium rate. Nine months later, policy remains in the sweet spot, thanks to a beneficial combination of moderate economic growth, healthy corporate profit growth, stable margins and low inflation. Last week's CPI report was disconcerting, but did reinforce the notion that the Fed can take its time. Thus, when investors ask: "How can equity prices and bond prices both be moving higher?" Our answer is: "Because we are still in the sweet spot." Low And Slow Wins The Day Investors are wondering how the equity market can hold up given that the bond market and the dollar appear to be signaling sluggish economic growth. We look at it another way. Rising equity prices, low and falling bond yields and stable credit spreads are all consistent with today's low growth and inflation backdrop, where the Fed can take its time raising rates. The FOMC reaffirmed its intended path for rates at last week's meeting (see below). If the Fed's modest forecasts for growth and inflation are met, the central bank will raise rates gradually and begin to shrink its balance sheet. The implication for investors is that the recent outperformance of stocks over bonds accompanied by positive correlations between the two can persist for some time. Lessons from the 1950s and 1990s are helpful in illustrating this point. During the 1950s (Chart 1A, the Fed was gradually raising rates, but inflation and long rates remained low. Even as rates edged higher, stocks outperformed bonds, despite a booming economy that was near full employment. In the 1990s, long bond yields fell even as equity prices surged. Inflation was well contained for most of that decade (Chart 1B). Chart 1ABond Yields, Stocks, Inflation And The Fed In The 1950s... Chart 1B...And In The 1990s At what point will bond market become a problem for stocks? Charts 2 and 3 show that low inflation and low rates are both critical to keeping stock and bond yields positively correlated. The 4.25% level on the 10-year Treasury is a critical level to watch based on the historical relationship between Treasury yields and stock-bond correlations. However, the reason for rising bond yields is as important as the level of yields. An increase in long-dated Treasury yields associated with a pickup in real growth is less of a threat to equities than a rise in yields due to an uptick in inflation, because the latter invites a more aggressive Fed tightening cycle. Chart 3 shows that core inflation around or below 2% supports a positive correlation between stock and bond yields. As inflation begins to move from 2 to 3%, the relationship fluctuates, and above 3% there are very few periods of positive correlation. All signs point to a depressed inflation environment over the next year, which is one of the keys to keeping bond yields and stock prices positively correlated. We expect core CPI to move back up to 2% in the medium term, and the Fed agrees. The central bank's latest forecast puts inflation at just 2% for the next two years and in the long run. Bottom Line: Stocks can handle rising bond yields as long as higher yields are driven by better growth and not inflation. With inflation low and bonds yields at 2.15%, we are a long way from where bond yields become a problem for the stock market. FOMC: Sticking With The Roadmap For Now It was a wild ride in the Treasury market last week as bonds first rallied hard on the heels of some data releases, before selling off after the FOMC failed to deliver a fully "dovish hike". May retail sales were decent below the surface. The "control group" measure that feeds into the GDP figures was flat in May, but was revised up to a 0.6% gain in April (Chart 4). The result was a solid 4.3% annualized gain over the past three months. This suggests that, although not booming, consumer spending growth is solid in the second quarter. U.S. household balance sheets are in solid shape, as we highlight below. The FOMC was probably not swayed by this report. The CPI report was another story (Chart 5). The energy component pulled down the headline rate as expected, but the softening of inflation is widespread in the index. The annualized 3-month rate of change in the core rate fell virtually to zero in May. Disinflation can be seen in areas that have little to do with the output gap, such as shelter and medical care. But it is also showing up in other services, a segment of the CPI that is most highly correlated with wage growth and labor market pressure. The sudden broad-based change in direction is difficult to explain and, at a minimum, presents a challenge to the view that the U.S. economy is approaching its non-inflationary limits. Chart 4Consumer Spending##BR##Remains Solid Chart 5Disinflation In Core Services##BR##Is A Challenge To Fed's View Bonds rallied heading into the FOMC meeting on the view that the Fed would deliver a rate hike as promised, but would revise down the "dot plot" or, at a minimum, would play up concerns about the inflation undershoot. In the event, the Fed did neither. Chart 6Labor Market Continues To Tighten The statement acknowledged the disappointing inflation readings, but also revealed a determination to normalize interest rates in the face of a tight labor market. In the press conference, Chair Yellen downplayed the inflation shortfall, pointing to some one-off factors. She stressed that the FOMC makes policy for the "medium term," and should not over-react to short-term wiggles in the data. Given the tight labor market, the Fed Chair argued that the conditions are in place for inflation to move higher. Indeed, the median FOMC forecast for headline and core inflation was revised down for this year only; the outlook for 2018 and 2019 was left unchanged at 2%. Growth was revised up a little for 2017. We agree with the FOMC that the labor market is tight enough to gradually push up inflation. The underlying trend in wage growth has accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% today according to our wage tracker, in line with the narrowing of the unemployment gap over the period (Chart 6). The FOMC trimmed its estimate of the full-employment level of unemployment by 0.1 percentage points to 4.6%, but it revised down its forecast for the actual unemployment rate by a larger 0.3 percentage points over the next two years. This means that the projected amount of excess labor demand is now greater than in the March projection. By itself, this should make the FOMC more predisposed to tightening, especially since financial conditions have been easing. That said, the May CPI report was admittedly disconcerting due to the broad-based nature of the disinflationary pulse. This is contrary to Chair Yellen's assertion that the inflation disappointment reflects one-off factors. The May CPI report could be a head-fake, related to normal randomness in the data. But it is not clear why there would be a sudden and widespread moderation of inflation. Inflation Expectations Plunge A large portion of the decline in long-term Treasury yields since March reflected a decline in inflation expectations. The 10-year CPI swap rate has dropped by 35 basis points over the period. BCA's fixed-income strategists point out that the decline in long-term inflation expectations has been widespread across the major countries, irrespective of whether or not actual inflation is trending up or down.1 Given all these diverging signals within the national inflation data, it is odd that there has been such a uniform decline in inflation expectations across the major bond markets. That leads us to look to the oil price decline as the main driver. Weaker energy prices have been part of a broader move lower in commodity prices that is likely related to less reflationary monetary and fiscal policies out of the world's biggest commodity consumer, China. However, our commodity strategists have noted that export and import volumes in the emerging economies accelerated sharply in the first quarter of 2017. Given that there is a strong correlation between trade volumes and oil demand in the emerging markets, this bodes well for a rebound in global oil demand. Combined with the "OPEC 2.0" production cuts, the demand-supply balance in world oil markets is likely to turn positive in the months ahead, which will allow oil prices to return to a range close to $60/bbl by year-end. A move in oil prices back to that level would help arrest the downturn in overall commodity price indices, and stabilize goods CPI inflation in the developed economies in the latter half of 2017. This should also boost global inflation expectations and bond yields, especially since inflation expectations have fallen too far relative to underlying non-energy inflation pressures. This forecast also applies to the U.S. bond market, although one cannot blame the deceleration in inflation entirely on energy in this case. We expect inflation to move higher in line with the tight labor market, but we may have to change our view if service sector inflation continues to move lower in the next few of months. Balance Sheet News Chart 7Main Risk To Bond Yields Is To The Upside The Fed also provided some details on plans to shrink the balance sheet in terms of the size of the monthly "run off". If the economy evolves as the Fed expects, the balance sheet will start to shrink later this year. Reducing the Fed's balance sheet will be negative for Treasury prices as we argued in the May 22, 2017 Weekly Report, but the impact of this adjustment on its own will be modest. As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions get too tight, too quickly (i.e. the term premium would rise, but would be partly offset by a lower expected path for the fed funds rate). Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. The bottom line is that the FOMC is looking-through the inflation shortfall for now and is sticking with its rate hike plan. The evolution of inflation in the coming months will obviously be key. Nonetheless, given that only one more rate hike is expected over the next year, inflation expectations are back to U.S. pre-election levels, and that the 10-year U.S. term premium is well below zero again, it appears that the main risk for bond yields is to the upside (Chart 7). The equity market should benefit in the short-term to the extent that market expectations for a flatter rate hike cycle are driven by lower inflation expectations, rather than a slower growth outlook. If we are correct that inflation expectations will bounce later this year, the associated bond sell-off may present a small headwind for stocks. Nonetheless, we do not believe this will derail the rally in risk assets until inflation has reached the Fed's 2% target, and bond yields and the dollar are significantly higher. The Consumer Comeback Continues The latest readings on the health of household balance sheet from the Fed's flow of funds accounts reinforce our view that the consumer sector will provide solid support for the U.S. economy through 2017 and beyond. Household net worth continues to rise and is well above average at this point in a long expansion (Chart 8). While the total wealth effect for consumer spending is lagging behind prior cycles, it remains supportive. Debt to income ratios are at multi-decade lows. The result of the ongoing balance sheet repair is that FICO scores have hit an all time high (Chart 8, panel 4). The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer's Survey also suggests that the banking sector is willing to lend to households and that consumers themselves are open to borrowing, although household demand for loans has weakened in recent quarters (Chart 9). Chart 8Support For Consumer Remains In Place Chart 9Senior Loan Officers Survey Still Supportive Consumer spending intentions also remain in an uptrend, and while consumers do not always do what they say, the 10-year high readings on "plans to buy" a house and a car are telling. (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). Overall measures of consumer confidence also remain at 16 year highs (Chart 10, panel 3). Chart 10Consumers Are In A Good Mood The sturdy labor market, modest wage growth, and low inflation are all factors that support a solid pace of real income growth, adding another support to the spending backdrop (Chart 10, panel 4). Rising rates do not pose a threat to spending for two main reasons, at least in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. First, we expect Fed rate hikes to be gradual this year and next, putting only modest upward pressure on longer-dated Treasury yields that anchor consumer loan rates for mortgages, autos, and personal loans. Our colleagues in The Bank Credit Analyst concluded that household interest payment burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, in the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100bps for today's levels. According to their analysis, it would require a much more significant shock, i.e. 300bps or greater, to move interest payments as a share of GDP back toward historical averages.2 We continue to receive many questions from clients on the risks posed by the rise in student debt levels. The Bank Credit Analyst publication covered the topic in a comprehensive report back in November 2016.3 The key takeaway from that report for investors was that student debt is a modest drag for economic growth, but is not a source of risk for U.S. government finances and does not represent the next subprime crisis. More than half a year later, our conclusions remain the same, though the concern among investors has not abated. A recent report4 by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York provides some data on student loans through Q1 2017. More specifically, the report noted that student debt levels continued to rise in Q4 2016 and Q1 2017, and that student loan delinquencies remain high by historical standards but moved sideways in recent years. We will continue to monitor the student loan and all other forms of consumer indebtedness as we assess the risks in the U.S. economy. However, the elevated level of student loan delinquencies does not change our overall assessment of the impact of student loans on the economy and the financial system. Student loans are only a mild economic headwind, and do not represent a source of financial systemic risk. Bottom Line: The consumer - a key driver of the U.S. economy and corporate earnings - will provide a solid backdrop for the economy through 2017 and beyond. This climate will allow the Fed to raise rates one more time this year and begin to pare its balance sheet. The solid underpinnings for the consumer will sustain corporate earnings growth and, ultimately, higher stock prices. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Alternative Facts In The Bond Market," dated June 13, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?," dated February 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Student Loan Blues: Can't Replay What I Borrowed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Quarterly Report On Household Debt And Credit", dated May 2017, available at https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2017Q1.pdf

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The rally in the S&P restaurants index has run its course and a profit recovery is fully discounted. Lock in profits and downgrade to neutral. Intensified inter-industry competition, the onslaught of online retailers and a rebounding U.S. economy are stiff headwinds for hypermarket stocks. Sell positions down to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Restaurants - Downgrade to neutral, booking profits of 11%. S&P Hypermarkets - Downgrade to neutral. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 remained resilient in the face of the fourth Fed interest rate hike and the drubbing in the tech sector. The latter is notable given that a select few stocks have contributed roughly one quarter of the overall market's gains this year, and signals that money is not leaving equities en masse, but is merely rotating into other sectors. This suggests that consolidation rather than correction is the main watchword. Our view remains that stocks are in a sweet spot: a lack of inflation pressures has kept long-term interest rates at bay, despite decent economic momentum and rising corporate profits. The latter have been driven by impressive corporate pricing power gains (see Chart 1 from last week's Weekly Report), creating an ideal equity market scenario whereby the business sector can grow profits without any corresponding consumer price inflation pressures. Investors are likely to extrapolate this goldilocks equity scenario for a while longer, given that our Reflation Gauge (RG), a combination of oil prices, Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar, has exploded to the highest level since 2010 and just shy of all-time highs. The RG leads both the U.S. economic surprise index and equity sentiment (Chart 1). If economic activity begins to reaccelerate, as we expect and irrespective of tax reform success, the window is open for additional equity market gains. Meanwhile, the mini sector rotation that commenced two weeks ago is a healthy development and may not be a precursor to a more vicious and widespread correction. In recent Weekly Reports, we have shown that our Equity Market Internal Dynamics Indicator was signaling that upward momentum in the broad market was well supported by the character of market participation (see Chart 2 from the May 15th Weekly Report). Chart 1Coiled Spring Chart 2Healthy Rotation Chart 2 shows that lately the small/large ratio has sprung back to life. Growth/value stalled near the previous all-time peak, and capital has flowed out of frothy tech stocks and into the cheaper and more economic-sensitive financials sector. Against a backdrop of a budding rebound in domestic economic data, this recent market rotation is likely to stay intact. That view is corroborated by the collapse in correlations among stocks and overall assets. The CBOE's implied correlation index has fallen to fresh cyclical lows, which suggests that investors have become increasingly discerning and that earnings fundamentals/valuations should become the primary drivers of stock market returns. Keep in mind that empirical evidence shows that receding stock correlations also underpin the broad equity market (top & bottom panels, Chart 2). All of these fluctuations signal that the broad equity market is more likely to build a base before it resumes its advance to new cyclical highs, rather than suffer an imminent and major correction. As such, we continue to slowly and deliberately recalibrate our portfolio away from its previously heavy bias toward defensives. This week we make two consumer-related shifts. Restaurants: Beware Of Heartburn One quarter ago we posited that the consolidation phase in the broad consumer discretionary sector restored value and created an attractive entry point. Washed out technicals and an upswing in industry earnings fundamentals supported our thesis (Chart 3). An upgrade in the S&P restaurants sub-index to overweight provided an attractive way to execute that thesis. This view has largely played out, as restaurant shares have bested the market by double digits since March 20th. Is there any more upside left to this impressive quarterly relative return? We doubt it. While we remain constructive on the overall consumer discretionary sector (Chart 4), we recommend crystalizing gains of 11% in the S&P restaurants index and downshifting to neutral. Chart 3Stay ##br##The Course... Chart 4...As Our Consumer Drag ##br## Indicator Is Flashing Green Q1 industry conference calls revealed that improved store traffic and better offerings boosted same-store sales, and relative share prices followed suit from a technically depressed level. That caused sell side analysts to modestly lift relative EPS forecasts, but a valuation re-rating still explains the bulk of the stock price surge (Chart 5). We are reluctant to pay a 40% premium to the broad market on a 12-month forward P/E basis. The National Restaurant Association's Restaurant Performance Index fell to the boom/bust 100 line and downside momentum has accelerated (second panel, Chart 5). Worrisomely, the Current Situation Index (not shown) of the same survey was in the contraction zone for "the sixth time in the last seven months". Similarly, the Expectations Index also decelerated, heralding an uncertain dining outlook. Indeed, demand for away from home dining is on the decline in absolute terms and compared with overall retail sales and consumption (middle panel, Chart 6). This suggests that the first quarter increase in store traffic may not be sustainable (top panel, Chart 6). The recent spike in restaurant construction expenditures will further dilute same-store sales growth opportunities (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Too Expensive Chart 6Do Not Overstay Your Welcome Leading indicators of profit margins have also eroded. An uptick in commodity input costs and 8% growth in the industry's wage bill, stand in marked contrast with anemic industry pricing power. Our restaurants profit margin gauge captures all of these forces and warns that a squeeze looms (Chart 7). Nevertheless, it is not all bad news. The improvement in consumer finances should counterbalance some of the casual dining industry's deficient demand hiccups. Rising household net worth makes consumers feel wealthier, and therefore increases their marginal propensity to spend. Importantly, the $15-$35K income cohort also expects a sizable boost to their take home pay, according to the latest Conference Board survey data (not shown). Importantly, the earnings headwind from foreign sales exposure has likely morphed into a profit tailwind. U.S. dollar softness is not only evident against G10 currencies, but also emerging market (EM) FX rates (Chart 8). In addition, healthy EM domestic demand is the mirror image of fickle U.S. final demand. EM central banks are easing monetary policy - whereas the Fed hiked for a fourth time this cycle last week - in order to rekindle EM consumer spending/growth. As a result, EM restaurant sales should improve (Chart 8). Chart 7Rising Input Costs ##br##Are Eating Into Margins Chart 8Export ##br## Relief Valve In sum, the playable rally in the S&P restaurants index has run its course and a profit recovery is fully priced in frothy valuations. The V-shaped rebound in share prices has outpaced fundamental improvements, and a consolidation/corrective phase is inevitable. Bottom Line: While we remain overweight the S&P consumer discretionary sector, we recommend booking profits of 11% in the S&P restaurants index (MCD, SBUX, YUM, DRI, CMG), and moving to a benchmark allocation. Time To Downgrade Hypermarkets While investors have shed anything retail related year-to-date (YTD), big box retailers have been a positive exception. In fact, the S&P hypermarkets index has been a stalwart performer YTD, outshining both the broad consumer staples universe and the overall market. Is this impressive run-up sustainable? The short answer is no. Three main headwinds suggest that some caution is warranted now that index outperformance has eliminated the previous valuation appeal: soft pricing power likely further aggravated by new German competitors expanding in/entering the U.S. market, the ongoing assault from online retailers and the improving U.S. economy, especially consumer spending. These factors imply that profit margins will remain under chronic pressure, but concerns could become more acute on a cyclical basis. Consumer goods import prices have surged in recent months (Chart 9), and the depreciating U.S. dollar is likely to sustain this uptrend. Cutthroat competition means that retailers will likely absorb these rising costs, to the detriment of profit margins. While food prices are making an effort to exit the deflation zone, ALDI and Lidl, two deep-pocketed German competitors are entering the U.S. retail scene, reportedly with massive expansion plans. Tesco, Sainsbury's and ASDA in the U.K., Carrefour in Europe and Woolworth's and Coles in Australia continue to feel the wrath of German retailers. Consequently, it would be dangerous to extrapolate the nascent improvement in retail food CPI. All of this is likely to sustain the profit margin squeeze (Chart 9). Further, the online retail onslaught will continue to escalate. The Amazon juggernaut appears unstoppable. The latest news that it will take over Whole Foods Market confirms that even grocery sales are now seriously on its radar screen. Chart 10 shows that non-store retail sales continue to grow at a much faster pace than traditional retailers. The greater the market share gains for online retailers, the larger the downward pressure on hypermarkets relative profitability (relative retail sales shown inverted, second panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Margin Pressures Chart 10Beware Online Retailers' Onslaught Under such a tough operating backdrop we are reluctant to pay a premium valuation for this safe haven sector. Worrisomely, soft revenue growth argues against a further a valuation re-rating (Chart 11). Finally, macro forces required to spur better revenue no longer exist. The U.S. economy has entered a self-reinforcing recovery. While personal consumption expenditures have underwhelmed of late, buoyant job certainty and a vibrant housing market are boosting consumer confidence. Before long, consumers should loosen their purse strings and indulge anew. Historically, a lively consumer spending backdrop has been inversely correlated with relative share prices (PCE is shown inverted, Chart 12). Similarly, Federal tax coffers have started to refill following a one year hiatus (bottom panel, Chart 12). The implication is that incomes and profits are expanding, boosting the incentive for consumers to "trade up" and shop at higher ticket stores. Nevertheless, some partial offsets exist. The lower income consumer is the industry's main clientele and low interest rates, low gasoline prices and soaring income confidence for this consumer cohort should cushion store traffic woes (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Derating ##br## Warning Chart 12Improving Economy = ##br## Bad Omen For Hypermarkets Chart 13Positive ##br##Offsets Meanwhile, the overall retail sales price deflator has tentatively troughed, albeit it continues to deflate. Given the high volume nature of the hypermarket industry, any small positive change in pricing power tends to have a meaningful impact on sales growth (second panel, Chart 13). Multi-year highs in overall income growth signals that on average consumers will have more disposable income. The bottom panel of Chart 13 shows that income growth has been a reliable indicator for hypermarket EPS. Adding it up, this is an opportune time to book modest profits and downgrade exposure in the S&P hypermarkets index to neutral. Intensified inter-industry competition, the onslaught of online retailers and a rebounding U.S. economy argue against extrapolating recent optimism far into the future. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to a benchmark allocation (WMT, COST). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The Federal Reserve stuck to its guns, which lifted the U.S. dollar despite a disastrous CPI report. We agree with the Fed's assessment and expect U.S. inflation to pick up, clearing the way for higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. With three dissenters voting in favor of higher rates, the Bank of England meeting delivered a hawkish surprise. However, the inflation surge will continue to weigh on consumer spending, limiting the capacity of the BoE to increase rates. Stay short cable, but use any rally in EUR/GBP above 0.88 to short this cross. The Canadian economy is strong, and the CAD should perform well on its crosses. However, USD/CAD downside is limited. Go short EUR/SEK. Feature This week was replete with central bank meetings, most crucially the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, which provided much-needed color on the near-term future direction of global monetary policy. While the BoE does face a serious rise in inflation, it is still focused on the risks to U.K. growth. In contrast, the Fed mostly ignored the disastrous inflation report released the morning before its policy announcement and kept its focus on the underlying strength in the U.S. economy. We believe both institutions are pursuing the appropriate strategy for their respective economies. The Fed: Straight Ahead Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her gang increased the fed funds rate by 25 basis points to 1-1.25% and pre-announced the parameters around the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet size. On the balance sheet front, the Fed removed any doubt that it will begin reducing its asset holdings this year. Additionally, the Fed provided its new set of forecasts for growth, inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. While it increased its growth forecast for 2017 to 2.2% from 2.1%, it curtailed its core PCE deflator forecast for 2017 by 0.3 percentage points to 1.6%. However, in line with its conviction that the soft patch in inflation is temporary, it kept its 2018 and 2019 core PCE forecasts at 2%. The Fed did also acknowledge that the equilibrium unemployment rate was lower than it believed in March, decreasing its long-term estimate by 0.1% to 4.6%. However, despite recognizing that NAIRU has fallen, the Fed still thinks the labor market is tight. It proceeded to curtail its unemployment rate forecasts by 0.2% in 2017 to 4.3%, and by 0.3% in 2018 and 2019 to 4.2%. Congruent with these forecasts, the Fed did not adjust its intended path for interest rates. It still expects to hike rates once more in 2017, and three more times in both 2018 and 2019. As a result of these policy changes and the intentions associated with the new set of forecasts, the dollar recouped its CPI report-induced decline, and gold suffered. Most interestingly, the market seems to believe that the Fed is entering the realm of policy mistakes as the 2-10-year yield curve flattened considerably, and inflation expectations plunged to their lowest levels since November 4, 2016 (Chart I-1). But is the Fed really making a mistake? We do not think so. Simply put, we agree with the Fed that underlying economic momentum in the U.S. is real, and that both wage growth and inflation will turn the corner this summer. To begin with, our composite capacity utilization gauge, based on both industrial capacity and labor market utilization, is now fully into "no slack" territory. Historically, this has given the Fed the green light to increase interest rates. There is no mystery behind this relationship: when this indicator is above the zero line, inflation pressures emerge and wage growth accelerates (Chart I-2). This time is unlikely to prove different. Chart I-1A Policy ##br##Mistake? Chart I-2Conditions In Place For Higher##br## Inflation And Rates Supporting this assessment, many indicators show that the recent slowdown in wage growth will prove a temporary phenomenon. First, the spread between the Conference Board's "jobs plentiful" and "jobs hard to get" series still points to accelerating average hourly earnings (Chart I-3). Second, the labor market is likely to remain healthy. True, the fastest pace of job creation is behind us, a key symptom that labor market slack is vanishing, but some of our favorite employment indicators - such as Janet Yellen's labor market condition index and the NFIB job openings and hiring plans subcomponents - have picked up again (Chart I-4). In an environment of little slack, this might not translate into impressive nonfarm payroll numbers, but most likely faster wage growth. Chart I-3Wages Will Pick Up Chart I-4Yes, The Labor Market Is Healthy Third, capex intentions are still perky. Historically, capex intentions have tightly correlated with wages, and even the recent softness in wages was forecast by these intentions. This is simply because capex tends to require labor. When corporate investment materializes as worries about the durability of final demand hits cyclical lows, this is generally an environment that requires bidding up the price of labor - i.e. wages. This is precisely the current economic backdrop (Chart I-5). While the slowdown in bank credit to enterprises has caused many commentators to worry about the outlook for capex, we do not share these concerns. For one, although businesses may not have been tapping bank loans in Q1, they have been aggressively borrowing in the bond market (Chart I-6, top panel). Moreover, credit standards are now easing anew, and small firms are reporting little difficulty in accessing credit (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Chart I-5Good Outlook For Growth And Wages Chart I-6I Need Credit; No Problem! With respect to consumption, weren't retail sales on the soft side as well? Here again, we need to step back. Real retail sales continue to grow at a healthy 4.2% annual pace; meanwhile, the so-called control group - which affects GDP computations - was flat in May, but the April number was revised to 0.6% month-on-month, suggesting real consumption will be robust in Q2. In fact, federal income tax withholdings, a good proxy for household income growth, is also accelerating, further supporting consumption (Chart I-7). Overall, we agree with the Fed that the economy is on its way to escaping from its recent soft patch and that wage growth will accelerate. Ryan Swift, who writes our sister U.S. Bond Strategy service, has also recently argued that the U.S. Philips curve remains alive and well, and that wages and inflation will thus pick up again.1 Our own work does highlight the potential for not just wage growth but core CPI to also perk up. U.S. real business sales have been very strong of late, which historically has been a good leading indicator of core inflation (Chart I-8, top panel). Labor market dynamics tell a similar story. Our unemployment diffusion index is also a good leader of core CPI, and after a soft patch is now pointing to firming underlying inflation (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7Real Consumption Will Trudge Along Chart I-8Inflation Soft Patch Will End Therefore, we expect the recent negative inflation surprise in the U.S. to reverse. Moreover, inflation surprises in the U.S. are also likely to beat those of the euro area. To a very large extent, Europe's positive inflation surprise, especially relative to the U.S., reflected the 2014 collapse in the euro. The recent stability in the euro since March 2015 further reinforces that the boost to European relative monetary conditions is dissipating, and that European inflation surprise will not outpace the U.S. going forward (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Inflation Surprises ##br##Will Pick Up Versus Europe's Chart I-10Diverging Policy ##br##Expectations This is very important, as these relative inflation surprise dynamics have been the key factor underpinning divergent expectations behind ECB policy and the Fed's path. While investors have increasingly brought forward the ECB's first hike, they have aggressively curtailed the number of hikes expected in the U.S. over the next two years (Chart I-10). If, as we expect, relative inflation surprises do once again move in favor of the U.S., this gap will disappear, supporting the dollar in the process. Bottom Line: The Fed is right to stay the course. The economy continues to display momentum, and the inflation soft patch should soon dissipate. Moreover, U.S. economic surprises are bottoming. As such, we expect market expectations for inflation and interest rates to move back toward the Fed's forecast, lifting the U.S. dollar in the process. BoE Dissenters Grab The Headlines, But... The poor BoE is in an infinitely more tenuous situation than the Fed. Core inflation continues to pick up, but economic uncertainty is also on the rise. This dichotomy is most pronounced when it comes to wages. At 2.6%, core inflation is now outpacing wage growth, thus real income levels are contracting (Chart I-11). This is problematic because at 65% of GDP, the U.K. is an economy fundamentally driven by consumer spending. As Chart I-12 illustrates, when inflation picks up and puts downward pressure on real wages, consumption sags. Therein lies the BoE's conundrum. Chart I-11U.K.: Inflation Everywhere, But Not In Wages Chart I-12The BOE's Dilemma Despite the three dissenters who voted in favor of a hike this week, we expect the BoE to continue to favor not lifting rates, leaving its accommodation in place.2 Household inflation expectations remain well moored, but a further relapse in growth could prompt a widening of the output gap and produce entrenched deflationary expectations down the line - something BoE Governor Mark Carney and his colleagues want to avoid at all costs. Chart I-13U.K. FDI At Risk Some investors have been wondering out loud about the likelihood of a "soft Brexit" coming back on the agenda, arguing that it would support the pound. Remaining in the common market is, after all, an unmitigated positive for the U.K. But to be part of the common market, the U.K. also has to adopt the sacrosanct freedom of movement of people. We remain unconvinced that the British will budge on this point. Brexit was first and foremost a rejection of neo-liberal ideals that have been perceived as detrimental to the British middle class. And no point has been and continues to be more contentious than immigration. With the EU absolutely unwilling to dilute freedom of movement, access to the common market for the U.K. remains a distant dream. Moreover, with the British median voter switching to the left, a topic discussed in last Friday's Geopolitical Strategy Service Special Report on the election, British politics are likely to become less business friendly.3 Compounding this issue, U.K. industrial production is flat on an annual basis, bucking the global improvement seen last year and implying that the falling pound has not boosted competitiveness in the U.K. manufacturing sector. Together these forces suggest that the recent upsurge in FDI inflows into the U.K. could reverse in coming quarters (Chart I-13), a big problem for a country with a current account deficit of more than 4% of GDP and deeply negative real rates. Ultimately, the pound is cheap, trading at a one-sigma discount to its fair value. This means the market is well aware of the negatives that are weighing on sterling. Thus, the risks to GBP are well balanced. As a result, we expect GBP/USD to finish the year toward 1.2 because of our expectation of USD strength. EUR/GBP has limited upside, and rises above 0.88 should be used to build short positions. Bottom Line: The BoE decision was in line with expectations, but the market was nonetheless surprised by the fact that three MPC members dissented and voted for a rate hike. Sure, British inflation is on the rise, but this is hurting household real incomes, and thus consumption. These dynamics limit the upside risk to policy rates. We think that GBP could weaken against the USD; we would use moves above 0.88 to short EUR/GBP. The Bank Of Canada Volte Face Despite a 5% fall in oil prices this week, the CAD has appreciated 1.2% against the USD. Behind this impressive move has been Monday's speech by Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins, in which she hinted that the Bank of Canada's next move will be a hike, coming sooner than investors have been anticipating. The BoC assessed that the negative impact of the fall in oil prices in 2014-'15 has passed, and that domestic strength in the Canadian economy has become self-sustaining. With the output gap expected to close in Q2 2018, the logical path for policy is tighter. Do the indicators warrant such a view? Yes: Canadian employment is quite strong, growing at a 1.8% annual pace. Unemployment too has fallen substantially. Capacity utilization is elevated in the manufacturing sector, thanks to a decade of low corporate investment. If our assessment of the U.S. capex cycle is correct, Canadian goods exports should pick up, adding to capacity and inflationary pressures in the country (Chart I-14). Our Canadian economic diffusion index - based on retail trade, manufacturing sales, building permits, and employment data in the 10 provinces - has sharply accelerated, pointing to a continued rise in GDP growth. Canadian LEIs and PMIs are all strong. Canadian house prices continue to forge ahead, growing at a 14% annual rate, which will additionally support Canadian consumption. This picture highlights that the BoC does have room to adjust its forward guidance, especially if the Fed stays on its desired path. Today, not only are investors the most short CAD since early 2007, but the loonie is cheap relative to real rate differentials (Chart I-15). As a result of these distortions, CAD could respond very positively to continued reaffirmation by the BoC that policy may become tighter. Chart I-14O Canada Chart I-15CAD At A Discount To Rates Practically, due to our broad bullish outlook on the USD, we find the most interesting way to play CAD strength is through its various crosses. Thus, we remain short EUR/CAD, short AUD/CAD, and long CAD/NOK. Bottom Line: The Canadian economy has escaped its funk. True, the long-term risks associated with the housing bubble will ultimately come home to roost. However, in the short term, the BoC is finding room to lift its forward guidance. As a result, CAD is likely to move higher on non-USD crosses. EUR/SEK Is A Short EUR/SEK should weaken in the coming quarters. To begin with, EUR/SEK is trading at a 7% premium against its PPP fair value. Additionally, the real trade-weighted SEK stands at a one-sigma discount to its long-term fundamental fair value, which further highlights the SEK's upside potential versus the euro, the main trading counterparty of Sweden (Chart I-16). Valuations are not enough to motivate a position. Economics need to join the ball. Today, the Swedish output gap is positive while that of Europe remains negative. Unsurprisingly, Swedish core inflation has overtaken that of the euro area (Chart I-17). Moreover, while we have argued at length why euro area core inflation is likely to disappoint going forward,4 pressure on Swedish resources is such that Swedish core inflation is likely to display additional upside (Chart I-18). Chart I-16SEK Is Cheap Chart I-17Swedish Core Inflation Is Outpacing Europe's Chart I-18Swedish Core Inflation Will Rise Further This means there will be attractive relative policy dynamics between the Riksbank and the ECB in the coming months. If the ECB has to tighten policy, the Riksbank has an even better case to be hawkish. If, however, the global economic environment prevents the ECB from tightening and forces it toward an easing bias, these global deflationary pressures should prove more muted in Sweden. Thus, we expect that Swedish policy will tighten relative to the ECB's, despite the economic and inflation environment. Chart I-19CPI Expectations Differential Will Push ##br##Policy Toward A Lower EUR/SEK Additionally, inflation expectations are pointing toward a lower EUR/SEK. The recent Swedish Prospera inflation survey showed that economic agents are expecting a pickup in inflation. As a result, market-based inflation expectations in Sweden have outperformed those in Germany, pointing to a lower EUR/SEK (Chart I-19). Essentially, this reflects potential changes in the relative direction of policy between the two currencies. The big risk to this view is that Stefan Ingves, the Riksbank governor, continues to be one of the most dovish policy makers in the world. However, his term ends on January 1, 2018, and unless he is renewed for another six years, his words and desires will increasingly lose their ability to affect markets. Bottom Line: The Swedish economy is increasingly moving closer to an inflationary environment. This cannot yet be said about the euro area. With inflation expectations sharply moving up in Sweden versus the euro zone, investors should begin betting against EUR/SEK. Housekeeping We are closing our short USD/JPY trade this week at a 4.2% profit. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 3, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Moreover, one of the dissenters was Kristin Forbes, who was attending her last meeting as a member of the MPC. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken", dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "ECB: All About China?", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Chairwoman Janet Yellen has halted the dollar selloff for now, with the DXY finally seeing some upside. Following the press conference, the greenback sits 1.2% above the lows seen prior to the Fed policy meeting. We share the view of the Fed and the expect markets to converge over time toward the Fed's forecasts. Additionally, Yellen confirmed that there is still one more hike on the table this year. We believe the market continues to underprice these factors, concentrating too much on what amounts to a temporary soft patch. As we have said in the past, these factors will continue to widen rate differentials between the U.S. and its G10 counterparts. Report Links: Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR/USD dropped on the news of a weak trade balance figure of EUR 19.6 bn, below the expected EUR 27.2 bn. Generally, EUR/USD has remained reasonably static as euro weakness was muted by equal dollar weakness, but recent Fed hawkishness has broken this trend. Draghi's hawkishness is tepid at best and the Fed hiking rates this Wednesday, as well as Yellen reiterating that another hike will be seen later this year will continue to help U.S. policy anticipations relative to Europe. As a result, rate differentials are likely to widen, and the euro to soften. The little appreciation in the euro earlier this week, was a result the following positives: German ZEW Survey's Current Situation went up to 88, beating expectations of 85; Euro Area ZEW Survey's Current Situation also went up to 37.7 from 35.1. Report Links: Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Domestic corporate goods prices grew by 2.1% YoY, against expectations of 2.2%. Machinery orders yearly growth came in at 2.7%, underperforming expectations by a wide margin. Industrial production yearly growth stayed flat at 5.7%. Ultimately, economic activity in Japan will largely depend on the currency. With the yen appreciating for most of 2017, it will be difficult for the Japanese economy to improve sustainably. At this point, we are closing our USD/JPY trade, as the correction in the U.S. dollar has run its course. Meanwhile, we remain bearish on NZD/JPY, as the rising dollar and the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions will deliver a formidable one-two punch to risk assets, and thus weigh on this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Industrial Production contracted by 0.8% on a YoY basis, underperforming expectations. Manufacturing production yearly growth stayed flat, also underperforming. Meanwhile, both core and headline inflation came in above expectations, at 2.6% and 2.9% respectively. Yesterday the BoE came in more hawkish than expected, as Ian McCafferty and Michael Saunders joined Kristin Forbes voting and dissented in favor offor a hike. Meanwhile, in their monetary policy summary the BoE stated that inflation will stay above target for an "extended period". Following the report, EUR/GBP plunged by about 0.8%. We are now not positive on the pound, as core inflation is now outpacing wage growth, a development that should weigh on demand due to the decline in real income. This development could cause GBP/USD and EUR/GBP to reach 1.2 and 0.92 respectively to reach 1.2 by year end, but any move in EUR/GBP above 0.88 should be used to short this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Data out of Australia was mixed this week: National Australia Bank's Business Confidence declined to 7 from 13; Westpac Consumer Confidence fell to -1.8% from -1.1%; However, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%, with full-time employment growing by 52,100, and part-time employment shrinking by 10,100. Most of the movement in the AUD was dominated by the employment data, seeing a broad-based increase versus other G10 currencies. While oil prices kept the CAD and NOK at bay, Chinese industrial production and retail sales increased at a 6.5% and 10.7% annual rate, respectively. Iron ore and copper, commodities important to Australia, however, saw little action, but coal saw a slight upside. The above dynamics resulted in the AUD outperforming other currencies versus the USD, and EUR/AUD weakened massively. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Electronic card retail sales grew by 5.2% year-on-year, increasing from 4.2% the month before. However, the current account deficit came in at 3.1% of GDP against expectations of 2.7%. Meanwhile, yearly GDP growth came in at 2.5%, underperforming expectations. The kiwi rallied this week as expectations of a dovish fed weighed on the dollar, although most of these gains vanished following the FOMC press conference. We continue to be positive on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is in much better footing than the Australian one. However, upside for NZD/USD is limited, as this cross has reached highly overbought levels. Furthermore, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions will become a headwind for a sustainable rally in the NZD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The downside in oil continues as EIA crude oil stocks decreased by 1.661 million barrels, less than the expected 2.739 million. AUD/CAD and NZD/CAD rallied on the news, while CAD/NOK levelled off. In the commodity space, we remain most positive on the Canadian economy. While oil prices are a hurdle, business and consumer confidence, as well as PMIs remain robust, and the BoC expects the output gap to close in Q2 2018. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy team continues to believe that OPEC cuts and increased oil demand will eventually curtail inventories. We therefore expect our short AUD/CAD trade to prove profitable as markets begin to digest these developments. While the CAD looks good on its crosses, the resumption of the dollar bull market will limit the USD/CAD's downside. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Yesterday, in their monetary policy statement, the SNB reasserted its dovish bias, pledging to keep its extremely accommodative monetary policy in the years to come. Their inflation outlook changed little, upgrading the near term slightly while downgrading the longer term outlook. It is important to consider that when the SNB states that they expect that inflation will reach only 1.5% by the first quarter of 2020, they do so assuming the LIBOR rate stays at -0.75%. Meanwhile, they also signaled that they will stay active intervening in the currency market, with SNB president Thomas Jordan reiterating that the Franc “remains significantly overvalued”. We had previously stated that the implied floor put under EUR/CHF by the SNB could be removed by the end of this year. However, this scenario now seems unlikely, given the strong commitment by the SNB to remain accommodative. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Following a sell-off for most of the beginning of the week, USD/NOK has rebounded sharply, following the FOMC interest rate decision. Furthermore, the disappointing draw in oil inventories also contributed to the surge in USD/NOK. We continue to be bearish on the NOK, given that inflation is still receding in Norway. Recent data supports this, with core inflation and producer prices falling from anewApril. Furthermore, any surge in the U.S. dollar will provide a tailwind to USD/NOK given that this cross is highly sensitive to the dollar. Another cross where we are positioned towe use to take advantage of gain from Norway's economic weakness difficulties is CAD/NOK. The Canadian economy is on ain much stronger footing than the Norwegian one, and the rally in the dollar has historically been a tailwind for this cross. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Sweden's economy is developing as expected, with headline inflation reading at the expected level of 1.7%, with a 0.1% monthly increase. Although inflation decreased from the previous 1.9% reading, the Riksbank's Resource Utilization Indicator - historically, a reliable indicator for core inflation - continues to point up, indicating that core inflation will accelerate further. We are putting on a short EUR/SEK trade on the basis of long-term valuations being in the favor of the krona. With a closed output gap, Sweden's economy is more advanced in its business cycle than the euro area', which points to a further bifurcation in inflation rates between the two. These factors will also warrant a quicker removal of policy support from the Riksbank than the ECB. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The FOMC statement reaffirmed that the Fed remains in hiking mode. If the Fed keeps raising rates in line with the "dots," monetary policy will move into restrictive territory by early 2019. By then, the unemployment rate will have fallen to a level where it has nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, history suggests that once unemployment starts rising, it keeps rising. The good news is that today's economic imbalances are not as formidable as those that existed in the lead-up to the past few recessions. The bad news is that cracks are starting to form. We are especially worried about the health of the U.S. commercial real estate sector. Remain overweight global equities for now, but look to significantly pare back exposure next summer. Feature The U.S. Expansion Is Getting Long In The Tooth Chart 1How Low Can It Go? The current U.S. expansion has now reached eight years, making it the third longest in the post-war era. History teaches that expansions do not die of old age. Rather, they are usually murdered by some combination of Fed tightening and the unwinding of the imbalances that were built up during the boom years. Thinking about the present, there is good and bad news on both fronts. Let's start with the Fed. This week's FOMC statement reaffirmed that the Fed remains in hiking mode. The good news is that real rates are still very low by historic standards, suggesting that the economy is unlikely to stall out this year. The bad news is that the Fed has less scope to raise rates than in the past. Chart 1 shows estimates of the real neutral rate developed by Fed researchers Thomas Laubach and Kathryn Holston, along with John Williams, President of the San Francisco Fed and Janet Yellen's close confidante. Their calculations suggest that the real neutral rate has plummeted over the past decade in the U.S. and the euro area, with lesser declines recorded in Canada and the U.K. In the U.S., the real neutral rate currently stands at 0.4%. Assuming the Fed raises interest rates in line with the "dots," rates will move into restrictive territory in early 2019. Given that monetary policy affects the real economy with a lag of 12-to-18 months, the Fed may not realize that it has raised rates too much until it is too late. The Downside Of A Low Unemployment Rate One might argue that this justifies a "go-slow" approach to tightening monetary policy. There is certainly validity to this view, but it is not without its drawbacks. The unemployment rate has now fallen to 4.3%, 0.4 points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. As Chart 2 illustrates, the odds of a recession rise when the unemployment rate reaches such low levels. Some commentators have argued that the headline unemployment rate understates the amount of economic slack. We are skeptical that this is the case. Table 1 compares a wide variety of measures of labor market slack with where they stood at the height of the business cycle in 2000 and 2007. The main message of the table is that the unemployment rate today is broadly where one would expect it to be based on these collaborating indicators. Taken together, these indicators suggest that slack is comparable to what it was in 2007, albeit still above the levels seen in 2000. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles As we noted last week, the easing in U.S. financial conditions over the past six months is likely to boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 3). If growth does accelerate, the unemployment rate - which is already 0.2 points below where the Fed thought it would be at the end of this year when it made its December 2016 projections - will fall below 4%. There is a high probability that this will fuel inflation, reversing the largely technically-driven decline in most core inflation measures over the past few months. Chart 3U.S.: Easy Financial Conditions Will Support Growth In H2 2017 The market is not pricing this in at all. In fact, 2-year breakeven inflation rates have tumbled by 87 basis points since March. A bit more inflation would be a welcome development. Not only have market-based projections of inflation fallen since the Great Recession, but long-term survey-based measures have dipped as well (Chart 4). Of course, one can have too much of a good thing. The experience of the 1960s is illustrative in that regard. Chart 5 shows that much like today, inflation in the first half of that decade was well anchored at just below 2%. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, inflation soared. Core inflation rose from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in early 1967, ultimately making its way to 6% by 1970. Chart 4Inflation Could Use A Boost Chart 5Inflation In The 1960s Took Off ##br##Once The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% If the Fed today wants to avoid the same fate, it will have to take steps to lift the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. Unfortunately, history suggests that it is difficult to raise the unemployment rate a little bit without inadvertently raising it by a lot. Once unemployment starts to rise, a vicious circle tends to erupt where increasing joblessness leads to slower income growth, falling confidence, and ultimately, less spending and higher unemployment. In fact, there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession ensuing (Chart 6). Chart 6Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Imbalances Are Growing The vicious circle described above tends to be amplified when there are large imbalances in the economy. The good news is that today's imbalances are not as formidable as those that existed in the lead-up to the past few recessions. The bad news is that cracks are starting to form. The ratio of household debt-to-disposable income is still close to post-recession lows, but this is largely because mortgage debt continues to be weighed down by a depressed homeownership rate (Chart 7). In contrast, consumer credit is rebounding: Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 8). Not surprisingly, this is starting to translate into higher default rates (Chart 9). The fact that this is happening at a time when the unemployment rate is at the lowest level in 16 years is a cause for concern. Chart 7Low Homeownership Rate Keeping A Lid On Mortgage Debt Chart 8Consumer Credit: Making A Comeback... Chart 9...With Defaults Starting To Rise In Some Categories Meanwhile, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen above 2000 levels and is closing in on its 2007 peak (Chart 10). Contrary to the widespread notion that "wages aren't rising," real wages are increasing more quickly than corporate productivity (Chart 11). As the labor market continues to tighten, corporate profitability could suffer, setting the stage for rising defaults and increasing layoffs. Chart 10U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 11Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Worries About Commercial Real Estate We are particularly worried about the health of the commercial real estate (CRE) market. CRE prices currently stand 7% above pre-recession levels in real terms, having risen by a staggering 82% since the start of 2010 (Chart 12). Financial institutions hold $3.8 trillion in CRE loans, $2 trillion of which are held by banks. As a share of GDP, the outstanding stock of CRE bank loans in most categories is near pre-recession levels (Chart 13). Chart 12Commercial Real Estate Prices Have ##br##Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Chart 13CRE Debt Is Rising Going forward, the fundamental underpinnings for the CRE market are likely to soften. The retail sector is already under intense pressure due to the shift in buying habits towards eCommerce. CMBX spreads in this space are rising. Vacancy rates in the apartment sector have started to tick higher and rent growth has slowed (Chart 14 and Chart 15). The number of apartment units under construction stands at a four-decade high according to Census data, despite a structurally subdued pace of household formation (Chart 16). Most of these units are likely to hit the market in 2018, which will result in a further increase in vacancy rates. Chart 14Vacancy Rates Are Bottoming Outside The Industrial Sector... Chart 15...While Rent Growth Is Losing Steam Chart 16Apartment Supply Is Surging, But Will There Be Enough Demand? There are fewer signs of overbuilding in the office sector. Nevertheless, vacancy rates are likely to rise, given the recent increase in the number of new projects in the pipeline. On the flipside, demand growth for new office space is set to weaken, as a tighter labor market leads to slower payroll gains. The Fed estimates that the U.S. needs to add only 80,000 workers to payrolls every month to keep up with a growing labor force, down from about 150,000 in the two decades preceding the Great Recession.1 The secular shift towards increased office density and teleworking will only further depress office demand over time. Chart 17Tighter Lending Standards Could Lead To Lower CRE Prices The one bright spot is industrial real estate. Thanks to a revival in U.S. manufacturing, vacancy rates remain low and rent growth is rising. However, if the U.S. economy does accelerate over the remainder of the year, the dollar is likely to strengthen, putting a dent in the profitability of U.S. manufacturing companies. Standing back, how worried should investors be about the CRE sector? For now, there is limited cause for concern. U.S. financial institutions have been tightening lending standards on CRE loans for seven straight quarters. Consequently, the average loan-to-value ratio for newly securitized loans has fallen about four points to 60% since 2015, and is now down eight points compared to 2007. However, if vacancy rates keep rising, real estate prices will fall, leading to a decline in the value of the collateral backing CRE loans. This could prompt lenders to pull back credit, causing prices to fall further (Chart 17). Seasoned real estate investors are no strangers to such vicious cycles, and if the next one begins at a time when growth is slowing because the economy is running out of spare capacity and financial conditions are tightening, it could easily trigger a recession. Fiscal Policy To The Rescue? Could looser fiscal policy delay the day of reckoning? The answer is yes, but much will depend on when the stimulus arrives and what form it takes. The best-case scenario is that fiscal policy is eased just as the economy is beginning to slow of its own accord. A burst of stimulus that arrives on the scene too early would be less desirable, although not necessarily counterproductive, since it would allow the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes, thereby giving it more scope to cut rates later in response to slower growth. In practice, however, calibrating the amount of monetary tightening that is necessary to offset a given amount of fiscal loosening is difficult to achieve. This is especially the case in today's environment where another fight over the debt ceiling looms large, a new health care bill is making its way through the Senate, and Trump's tax agenda remains heavy on promises but short on specifics. Our expectation is that Congress will pass a "balanced" budget which equates revenues with expenditures over the 10-year budget horizon. How this affects growth is hard to predict with any certainty. On the one hand, spending cuts tend to depress aggregate demand more than tax cuts raise demand. In economic parlance, the fiscal multiplier for government spending is larger than for taxes. On the other hand, the tax cuts are likely to be front-loaded, while the spending cuts will be back-dated. If history is any guide, this means that the latter will never see the light of day. In addition, some of the budgetary impact from cutting statutory tax rates will be paid for through dynamic scoring, the questionable practice of assuming that lower personal and corporate tax rates will significantly spur growth. On balance, we expect fiscal policy to turn modestly stimulative over the next few years. However, given the uncertainty involved, there is a risk that the Fed either raises rates too much - thereby choking off growth - or by not enough, causing the unemployment rate to fall to a level where it has nowhere to go but up. Both outcomes could trigger a recession. Investment Conclusions Right now, our recession timing model, as well as the models maintained by various regional Fed banks, assign a low probability of a severe slowdown in the coming months (See Box 1 for details). These models, however, tend to send reliable signals only over a fairly short horizon. Looking further ahead, we see a heightened probability of weaker growth in the second half of 2018, which could set the stage for a recession in 2019. The good news is that today's economic imbalances are not as daunting as they were in the late innings of many past economic expansions. Thus, the 2019 recession is not likely to be especially severe. The bad news is that valuations across most markets are quite stretched. Thus, like the 2001 recession, the financial market impact could be disproportionally large compared to the economic impact. We are still overweight global equities, but will be looking to significantly reduce exposure by next summer. Once the equity bear market begins - most likely late next year - a 20%-to-30% retracement in U.S. stocks is probable. Given that correlations across stock markets tend to rise when risk sentiment is deteriorating, it is likely that other global bourses will also suffer if U.S. stocks weaken. Indeed, considering that most stock markets have a beta to the S&P 500 that exceeds one, other regions could suffer even more than the U.S. As the U.S. economy falls into recession, the Fed will stop raising rates. This will cause the dollar to weaken, although not before it has appreciated by about 10% in trade-weighted terms from current levels. Thus, while we remain bullish on the dollar over the next 12 months, we are much less sanguine about the greenback over the long haul. As the dollar weakens, the yen and euro will strengthen, imparting deflationary pressures on those economies. If our timing for the next recession proves correct, neither the ECB nor the BoJ will hike rates for the remainder of the decade. The Bank of England is a tougher call. The neutral rate of interest is higher in the U.K. than in continental Europe. Last week's election results represented a clear rejection of fiscal austerity. A more expansionary fiscal stance would give the BoE some scope to raise rates. A weaker pound has also given the economy a much needed competitive boost. With inflation picking up, it is not surprising that the BoE struck a more hawkish tone this week. Nevertheless, Brexit negotiations are liable to drag on for some time, which will constrain the ability of the BoE to tighten monetary policy. Stay long GBP/EUR and GBP/JPY over the next 12 months, but remain short GBP/USD. Housekeeping Note: Closing Our Tactical S&P 500 Short Hedge As noted above, we remain cyclically overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon. However, on occasion, we have put on a tactical hedge whenever equities appeared to be technically overbought. Such a situation arose six weeks ago. While the stock market did dip briefly shortly after we initiated the trade, it subsequently rallied back. At the time of initiation, we indicated that the trade would have a lifespan of six weeks. The clock has now run out, and we are closing the trade for a loss of 2%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Rhys Bidder, Tim Mahedy, and Rob Valletta, "Trend Job Growth: Where's Normal?" FRBSF Economic Letter, 2016-32, Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco (October 24,2016), and Daniel Aaronson, "Estimating The Trend In Employment Growth," Chicago Fed Letter, No. 312, Federal Reserve Bank Of Chicago (July 2013). BOX 1 The Message From Our Recession Timing Model Chart Box 18Near-Term Recession Risk Remains Low Our recession timing model is based on eight variables: The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator, the Coincident Economic Indicator, the fed funds rate, inflation expectations, the unemployment rate, oil prices, credit spreads, and the yield curve. We use a logistic regression framework to model the probability of a recession. Currently, our model shows that the odds of a recession are low (Chart Box 18, panel 1). Only one of the components, namely, a rising fed funds rate, is signaling a risk of a recession. The various models developed by regional Federal Reserve banks also show very low near-term odds of a recession (panels 2 and 3). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades