Developed Countries

Highlights 'Super Thursday' June 8 brings three potentially high-impact events for financial markets: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee. Each of these events has the potential to move markets - especially currencies - abruptly in either direction. Medium-term investors should use Super Thursday and its aftermath as follows: If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. Use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position. Feature Traders will be salivating at the prospect of three potentially high-impact events for financial markets in the space of a day: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee about possible collusion between the campaign of President Donald Trump and Russian officials. This report will focus on the first two of these 'Super Thursday' events. Chart of the WeekRelative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance 300-340 Conservative Seats = Short-Term Pain For The Pound Chart I-2The Pound Is Where It Was When##br## The Election Was Called The U.K. General Election result has the potential to move the pound abruptly in either direction. Therefore, it also has the potential to drive FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 relative performance which is just an inverse currency play. But treat the U.K. election result as a trading opportunity rather than as a game changer for any investment position. Theresa May admits that she called the snap election to strengthen her narrow parliamentary majority ahead of Brexit negotiations. When she called the election, the Conservatives were riding high in the polls, and markets expected May easily to achieve her aim. Reasoning that a much strengthened majority would reduce the influence of the hard Brexiters in her party, the pound rallied (Chart I-2). But as the polls have tightened, it has given back this gain. If the number of Conservative seats does not meaningfully move up from the current 330, or worse, if the result increases uncertainty, the pound is vulnerable to a further snap sell-off. A parliamentary majority requires 326 MPs, but around 320 is enough for an effective majority because Sinn Fein MPs,1 the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote. 315 might just scrape a Conservative minority government supported by its Northern Ireland Unionist allies. Hence, if the Conservatives win 300-340 seats, a knee-jerk sell-off in the pound is likely. Chart I-3The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because##br## It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations If the Conservatives win well above 340 seats, the pound should knee-jerk rally - as May's effective majority would strengthen enough to marginalize the hard Brexiters. If the Conservatives win well below 300 seats, the pound might also settle higher - as this is the territory of a Labour minority government supported by the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats, and thereby a softer Brexit. But any major moves in the pound after the election will prove to be transient, because the over-arching driver of currencies is the interplay of interest rate expectations. Chart I-3 illustrates that last year's Brexit vote depressed the pound because the shock outcome precipitated a base rate cut and depressed expectations for Bank of England interest rate policy. In contrast to the Brexit vote, the General Election result per se will not have a lasting impact on the pound because it is unlikely to change the interest rate setting calculus for the BoE relative to other central banks. The BoE has been one of the most inert central banks when it comes to changing interest rates in either direction. Last year's emergency rate cut, forced by the shock vote for Brexit, has been the BoE's only policy rate move in 8 years! We expect the BoE to continue with its policy rate inertia because U.K. real consumption is highly correlated (inversely) to inflation. When inflation is too high, real consumption is undermined, making it difficult to hike rates; when inflation is too low, real consumption tends to grow strongly, making it difficult to cut rates (Chart I-4). This mirror image performance of inflation and real consumption has tied the hands of the BoE for 8 years, and will continue to do so. Chart I-4Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied With the BoE's hands tied, relative interest rate expectations - and therefore the medium-term direction of the pound - will depend on the other central bank in the respective cross rate. Which brings us neatly to the ECB. The ECB Must Follow The Hard Data Years of extreme and experimental central bank intervention have left markets hyper-sensitive to the slightest change of nuance in central bank communication. We have now come to a ridiculous state of affairs where reducing two instances of the sentence "the balance of risks remain tilted to the downside" in the March 9 ECB press conference introductory statement to just one instance in the April 27 statement is regarded as de facto monetary tightening! The slightest change of nuance in central bank communication can powerfully drive markets over a timeframe of a few weeks or months. As Peter Praet, the ECB Chief Economist, warns: "After a prolonged period of exceptional monetary policy accommodation, financial markets are particularly sensitive to any perceived change in the future course of monetary policy. (Therefore) any substantial change in communication needs to be motivated by some more evidence in the hard data." On this basis, we expect the ECB to acknowledge the hard data showing euro area growth is solid and broad, and downside risks are diminishing; but that the required upward adjustment in inflation remains sluggish. For euro/dollar, a mixed message such as this might create a near-term setback of around 2%, given that it has rallied strongly in the past 65 days and is now technically overbought (see page 8). We would regard a 2% setback for the euro as a medium-term buying opportunity. As Peter Praet points out, central banks' data-dependency means that policy must follow the hard data over a timeframe of six months or longer. The Chart of the Week, Chart I-5 and Chart I-6 should make this crystal clear. Relative interest rate expectations and bond yield spreads ultimately follow relative economic performance. Chart I-5Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Chart I-6...And Inflation Differentials If, as we expect, euro area growth2 continues to perform in line with or better than the U.S. and U.K. - and inflation differentials continue to narrow - then relative interest rate expectations will also continue to converge. Even the ECB admits that its main growth worry comes not from the euro area economy itself but rather from "the considerable uncertainty surrounding the new U.S. Administration's policies." In this regard, observe that the post-Trump spike in U.S. interest rate expectations has barely unwound (Chart I-7). We think it should unwind more. And who knows, perhaps James Comey will be the immediate catalyst. Chart I-7The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound What To Do After Super Thursday Chart I-8Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives ##br##FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 In summary, policy rate expectations - in relative terms - will structurally continue to: Get less dovish in the euro area. Remain broadly unchanged in the U.K. Get more dovish in the U.S. Hence, our structural preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. Which brings us finally to what medium-term investors should do after Super Thursday. If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. And use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Sinn Fein MPs are not eligible to vote because they refuse to pledge allegiance to the Queen. 2 Growth must be adjusted for different demographics. Our preference is to use real GDP per head based on working age (15-64) population. Fractal Trading Model* Euro/dollar is technically overbought, so traders can play a countertrend move. Target a 2% retracement. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Crude oil prices will find support from stronger EM trade volumes, which broke out of an extended low-growth period at the end of last year and finished 1Q17 on a very strong note. Sustained growth in EM trade volumes will boost inflation at the consumer level in the U.S. and Europe, and will lift the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, provided the Fed does not constrict the growth of money supply this year and next. Energy: Overweight. We remain long Dec/17 WTI and Brent vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent, expecting the extended OPEC 2.0 production cuts and stronger oil demand to drain inventories this year. Base Metals: Neutral. China's Caixin manufacturing PMI for May fell below 50, indicating the manufacturing sector may be contracting. We will wait to see if this is confirmed this month and next, but for now this keeps us neutral with a negative tilt on the base metals complex. Precious Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD, and market expectations the Fed will be constrained in lifting interest rates later this year is supporting our strategic gold portfolio hedge, which is up 5.1% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Front-month corn is trading through the top of the $3.55 to $3.75/bushel range it has occupied since the beginning of the year. We are not inclined to play the momentum. Feature EM import and export volumes moved sharply higher in 1Q17 after breaking out of an extended low-growth funk late last year (Chart of the Week). The year-on-year (yoy) increase in the volume of imports and exports for EM economies reported by the CPB World Trade Monitor were up on average 8.74% and 5.29% in 1Q17, respectively, versus 12-month moving average levels of 2.2% and 2.5%.1 EM trade volumes are highly correlated with EM oil demand (Chart 2), particularly in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) era, when EM import and export growth made significant gains relative to DM trade volumes (Chart 3).2 Indeed, EM imports and exports both grew at twice the rate of DM trade between the end of 2010 and the end of 1Q17: EM import volumes grew 22% vs. DM growth of 10% over the period, while EM export volumes grew 21% vs. DM growth of 11%. Chart of the WeekEM Imports And Exports##BR##Surge In 1Q17 Chart 2EM Oil Demand Closely##BR##Tracks Trade Volumes Chart 3EM Trade-Volume Growth##BR##Surpasses DM Growth We expect EM demand will account for some 80% of ~1.53mm b/d of global oil demand growth this year. If the strong 1Q17 performance in EM trade were to carry into 2Q, we will be raising our estimated oil-demand growth for the year significantly. We will be updating our global supply-demand balances next week. Coupled with the extension to end-March 2018 of the 1.8mm-barrel-per-day crude-oil production cuts recently agreed by the OPEC 2.0, the strong EM oil-demand growth could accelerate the draw-down in global storage levels, putting the WTI and Brent forward curves into backwardation sooner than the late-2017/early-2018 timeframe we currently expect.3 EM Trade Growth Will Stoke Oil Prices And Inflation Because EM demand is the driving force of global oil-demand growth, a continuation of the strong trade performance from this sector will support oil prices going forward, and likely will lift inflation as the year progresses. In the post-GFC period, we would expect a 1% increase in EM import and export volumes to boost oil prices by a little more than 2%, and vice versa.4 This is almost twice the effect an increase in trade produces in estimates beginning pre-GFC in 2000; most likely, it reflects the increase in EM trade volumes relative to DM trade volumes post-GFC.5 Our modeling confirms key inflation gauges - particularly the Fed's preferred gauge, the core PCE; the U.S. CPI; and EMU Harmonized CPI - all are highly sensitive to EM oil demand, as expected, and, no surprise, to EM trade volumes.6 In the post-GFC period, a 1% increase (decrease) in EM oil demand can be expected to lift (drop) core PCE and the U.S. CPI by a little more than 50bps; for the EMU CPI, a 40bps increase (decrease) can be expected.7 In addition, we have found the EM trade data also is a highly explanatory variable for these inflation gauges. Imports explain ~ 84%, 91% and 89% of core PCE (Chart 4), U.S. CPI (Chart 5), and EMU CPI (Chart 6), respectively, in the post-GFC period, while exports explain 94%, 93% and 81% of these inflation gauges. The elasticities for the U.S. gauges is ~ 50bps, similar to the EM oil demand estimates, and ~35bps for the EMU CPI. Chart 4Core PCE Is Highly Sensitive To EM Trade Volumes... Chart 5...As Is U.S. CPI... Chart 6...And EMU CPI A continued expansion of EM trading volumes this year can be expected to lift inflation in the U.S. and Europe. We also would expect this to hold for China as well, given the results of our earlier research.8 Fed Could Kill The Party Chart 7U.S. M2 Is Important To EM Trade Volumes One variable we are watching closely is U.S. money supply, M2 in particular, vis-à-vis EM trade volumes (Chart 7). We find that in the post-GFC world, EM trade volumes are highly sensitive to M2, with M2 explaining 92% of EM exports and 82% of imports. This relationship did not exist in the pre-GFC world, or in estimates starting pre-GFC and extending to the present day. This no doubt is related to massive monetary accommodation and QE experiments post-GFC, but, as of this writing, we are not at all sure how this relationship will evolve going forward. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes have broken out of a long-term funk, which will be supportive of crude oil prices and will lift inflation going forward. Strong EM trade growth at the pace at which it ended 1Q17 would cause us to lift our expectation for global oil demand significantly for this year. This, combined with the extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to March 2018 could normalize global inventories faster than markets currently expect. EM trade is, importantly, highly exposed to U.S. monetary policy, particularly to what happens to U.S. M2 money supply. This is a feature of the global trade picture that was not present pre-GFC. Our research affirms our conviction on the bullish oil exposure we have on - chiefly the long Dec/17 Brent and WTI vs. short Dec/18 Brent and WTI backwardation trades. Our results also support remaining long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk, and remaining long commodity-index exposure. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The CPB World Trade Monitor is published monthly by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Please see https://www.cpb.nl/en/worldtrademonitor for data and documentation. We use CPB's volumetric data for EM imports and exports in our analysis, which are indexed to 2010 = 100; we converted these data to USD values to see how the composition of imports and exports was changing so as to better see how the relative shares of EM and DM are evolving. 2 EM export and import volumes are cointegrated with non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM oil demand, in regressions starting pre- and post-GFC, meaning they share a common trend and are in a long-term equilibrium. The adjusted R2 coefficient of determination for EM oil demand as a function of EM export volumes is 0.91 for estimates starting in 2003 and 2010 (the pre- and post-GFC periods); for EM imports, it is 0.84 post-GFC, and 0.90 pre-GFC. Post-GFC, we estimate a 1% increase (decrease) in EM import and export volumes translates to an 88bp and 85bp gain (decline) in EM oil demand. The read-through on this is EM trade volumes are closely tied to income growth, given the income-elasticity of demand for oil is ~ 1.0 in non-OECD economies, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). In our modeling, we assume the GFC ended in 2010. 3 Please see our discussion of this production-cut extension in the joint report we did with BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy on June 1, 2017, entitled "Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 The R2 coefficients of determination for the cointegrating regressions of Brent prices on EM export and import volumes are 0.90 and 0.93, respectively, for post-GFC estimates. For estimates beginning in 2000, the R2 coefficients are 0.88, while the elasticities are ~1.20 for the EM trade variables. These models also include a parameter for the broad trade-weighted USD, which, post-GFC, has become more important to the evolution of Brent prices: A 1% increase in the currency parameter translates to a price decline of more than 5%, which is approximately twice the value of the estimates starting pre-GFC. 5 Our estimates for WTI produce similar results for the pre- and post-GFC periods. 6 We examined this in our August 4 and 11, 2016, in "Memo To The Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," and "Global Inflation And Commodity Markets." Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The R2 coefficients of determination for the core PCE, U.S. CPI and EMU CPI estimates as a function of EM oil demand are 0.97, 0.94 and 0.85, respectively. It is interesting to observe that prompt measures of inflation are not correlated to oil prices, but that 5-year 5-year CPI swaps remain highly correlated with oil prices, the 3-year forward WTI futures contract in particular; the R2 for the estimate of the 5y5y CPI swap as a function of the 3-year WTI contract is 75%. 8 In the August 11, 2016, article "Global Inflation And Commodity Markets," we found Chinese inflation to be equally sensitive to EM oil demand. We will be exploring this further when we look at base metals demand vis-à-vis EM trading volumes in forthcoming research. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Merkel is not revolutionizing but reaffirming Germany's Europhile policy; An earlier date for the Italian election would bring market jitters forward from Q1 2018; Yet a new German-style electoral law would decrease the risks of a populist win; The Tories will retain their majority in U.K. elections. Fiscal policy will ease regardless of the outcome; Close long Chinese equities versus Hong Kong/Taiwan; remain overweight Euro Area equities. Feature Possible early elections in Italy and a narrowing lead for Theresa May in the June 8 U.K. election has unsettled investors over the past week. The former threatens to rekindle the flames of the Euro Area conflagration and has weighed on Euro Area equities (Chart 1). The latter threatens Prime Minister May's mandate and political capital, suggesting that the U.K.-EU Brexit negotiations could be acrimonious later this year. This report deals with both issues. Yes, Italy is a major risk to the Euro Area, and despite general awareness of the election, it is not clear to us that investors realize the depth of the risk. As such, Euro Area equities may outperform developed market peers right until the election. As for the U.K. election, we think its impact on global risk assets is non-existent and its impact on U.K. assets is likely to be fleeting. The bigger threat to global markets remains China. In a March report, we suggested that Chinese policymakers may be testing the waters for broad-based financial and industrial sector reform akin to their late 1990s efforts.1 These reforms could be deflationary in cyclical terms and thus a risk for global growth. We argued that the timeline for these efforts would have to wait for the conclusion of the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall and thus Beijing's policy represented a potential problem for 2018.2 Chart 1Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Chart 2China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll Then again, President Xi Jinping may flout the rule of thumb in Chinese politics that aggressive policy actions should wait until after the five-year party congresses. Monetary tightening - which could be the first salvo of broader financial-sector reform - has already had negative effects on the real economy (Chart 2). The economic surprise index has corrected, as have China's PMI and LEI. Further Chinese tightening would invariably hurt Chinese demand for imports (Chart 3), which would have negative knock-on effects for EM economies, whose growth momentum appears to have already rolled over (Chart 4). Investors should carefully monitor China over the summer. Any signaling from policymakers that they are willing to move away from the "Socialist Put" and towards genuine deleveraging (not to mention their promised free-market reforms) would have negative global implications. Our colleague Mathieu Savary, of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that Europe's economic outperformance relative to the U.S. is highly leveraged to Chinese liquidity (Chart 5).3 As such, decisions made by policymakers in Beijing will likely be more important for European asset performance than who sits in Rome's Palazzo Chigi. Chart 3Tighter Credit Impulse##br## Will Drag Down Imports Chart 4A Chinese Import ##br##Drag Will Hurt EM Chart 5Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity We are closing our long Chinese equities / short Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities trade for a gain of 3.45%. While policymakers are already backpedaling a bit, financial tightening inherently raises risks in an excessively leveraged economy. Europe Über Alles? Many clients are asking about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent comments on European unity. On the heels of the G7 summit, during which Merkel locked horns with U.S. President Donald Trump, Merkel delivered the most Europhile speech of her career: The era in which we could fully rely on others is over ... That's what I experienced over the past several days ... We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands ... But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny. To many in the media and financial industry the speech seemed like a massive departure from Merkel's cautious and reticent approach to European policymaking. We could not disagree more. European integration imperatives are intrinsically geopolitical, as we have argued since 2011.4 Members of the Euro Area are integrating not because of liberal idealism or misguided dogmatism on monetary union. Rather, they are engaged in a cold, calculated, and deeply realist political project to remain relevant in the twenty-first century. This net assessment has guided our analysis of various Euro Area crises. We supported our top-down theoretical view with bottom-up data showing that European voters were not revolting against integration. Integration may be elite-driven, but it has broad popular support. Support for the common currency has never dipped below 50% (Chart 6), despite a once-in-a-generation economic crisis, and most European states are pessimistic about their separate futures outside the EU (Chart 7). Chart 6Voters Approve Of The Euro Chart 7EU Exits: Not On Horizon German policymakers have operated within these geopolitical confines since the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis began in the waning days of 2009. At every turn of the crisis, whenever one or another German policymaker issued a "red line" regarding what "Berlin cannot accept," the correct view was to bet against that policymaker, i.e. against any Euroskeptic outcome. Since 2010, we have seen: Numerous direct bailouts of member states; A dove appointed to lead the ECB, with Berlin's blessing; Direct ECB purchases of government bonds; Deeper fiscal and banking integration of the Euro Area, albeit at a slow pace; Expansion - not contraction - of Euro Area membership; The reversal of fiscal austerity. We were able to forecast these turns because our constraint-based methodology gave us a high-conviction view that German policymakers would ultimately be forced down the integrationist, Europhile road. The German population did not revolt against these constraints. Germans are not Euroskeptic. We have no idea why many investors think they are: there is no evidence of it in data or history. German history is replete with failed efforts to unify (and lead) the European continent by hook or by crook. The country is cursed with just enough economic prowess to be threatening to its peers and yet not enough to dominate them by force. As such, it is a German national security imperative to ensure that it does not see the rest of Europe coalesce into an economic or military alliance against it. The EU and its institutions, which allow Germany to be prosperous without the threat of an enemy coalition, are therefore worth preserving, even at a steep cost. True, the costs of bailing out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain tested German enthusiasm for European integration. However, German support for the common currency never dipped below 60% amidst the sovereign debt crisis and has since rebounded to a record high of 81% (Chart 8). Only 20% of Germans are confident of a future outside the EU (Chart 9). Chart 8Rise Of The Europhile Germany Chart 9Germany: No Life After EU Death As such, Merkel's statement following the G7 summit is only surprising because it is explicit. Indeed, the reason Merkel made this statement now is not because she suddenly had a grand geopolitical realization, nor because Trump suddenly disabused her of a naïve belief in the benevolence of the United States. Merkel has understood Europe's imperatives for at least a decade. The real reason for her statement is domestic politics. Martin Schulz, Merkel's opponent in general elections to be held on September 24, has tapped into the rising Europhile sentiment among Germans. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) sprang back to life this year following Schulz's appointment as SPD chancellor-candidate. Despite a recent relapse for the SPD in the polls, Merkel wants to ensure that she is not vulnerable on her left flank to the more Europhile Social Democrats. In the face of this renewed threat from the SPD, the venue of Merkel's speech was highly symbolic: a summit of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), held in a beer hall no less! Bavaria is the most conservative and Euroskeptic part of Germany. Over the past two years, the CSU has flirted with abandoning its post-war electoral alliance with the CDU due to Berlin's various Europhile turns. This development threatened to undermine Merkel and her base of power from within. Merkel's speech, to the most Euroskeptic part of Germany, was designed to prepare her conservative base for a further deepening of European integration. It was not a policy shift but rather a statement that brought her rhetoric more in line with her policy actions. It was also a reminder to her core allies that they must continue on the current policy path unless they would rather have Schulz's SPD force them into even deeper European integration, and faster. What does this mean going forward? We think that the dirty word of European politics - "Eurobonds" - will come into play again. As if on cue, the European Commission has published a report that proposes bundling the debt of Euro Area sovereigns.5 The proposal is not exactly calling for Eurobonds, but rather for securitizing existing bonds into new instruments. As usual, a German finance ministry spokesperson opposed the plan. However, the path of least resistance will be towards more integration that may include such securitization. In fact, Eurobonds already exist. Europe's fiscal backstop mechanisms - formerly the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and now the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - have both issued bonds to finance sovereign bailout efforts. So has the European Investment Bank (EIB). Their bonds trade largely in line with French sovereign debt, with a 37 basis point premium over German 10-year Bunds (Chart 10). Most importantly, the European Commission - the executive arm of the EU - already has authority to issue bonds and even tap member states for funds in case it needs to fill a gap. As the European Commission cites in its pitch-book to bond investors (yes, you read that correctly), "should the funds available from the EU budget be insufficient, the Commission may directly draw on the Member States, without any extra decision making being required."6 Currently, EU treaties forbid bond issuance that would directly finance the budget of a member state. However, Article 143 lays down the possibility of granting mutual assistance to an EU country facing a balance-of-payments crisis, which the EU Commission handles via its €50 billion balance-of-payments assistance program. In the future, the Commission could issue bonds to finance joint, EU-wide projects for areas like defense or infrastructure. It does not appear that such a decision would require a change to EU treaties. Over the long term, the integration imperative will remain strong in Europe. Ironically, Donald Trump is probably the best thing that has happened to European unity, at least since President Vladimir Putin. However, we think media commentators may be overstating President Trump's impact. The U.S. was already growing aloof toward Europe under President Obama, who overtly tilted his foreign policy towards Asia, and President Bush, whose administration clashed with "old Europe" and merely flirted with "new Europe." With the prospect of the U.S. withdrawing its security blanket, Europeans are being forced to integrate. Otherwise they would have to deal with the full range of global crises - from debt to terrorism to migration to war - as separate, and weak, individual states. And the U.S. is unlikely to return to its post-World War II level of concern regarding European affairs anytime soon. We doubt that even a recession would greatly impede the integrationist impulse on the continent. The Great Financial Crisis was a once-in-a-generation economic crisis and yet it has deepened, not decreased, support for integration. That said, risks remain. While the median voter in Europe appears to support the elite-driven integrationist effort, the median voter in Italy is on the fence. Bottom Line: Merkel's Europhile speech in Bavaria was meant to reinforce the ongoing integrationist path to her domestic audience in an election year. We suspect that Germany under Merkel, along with France under recently elected President Emmanuel Macron, will continue down the same path. At some point in the not-so-distant future, this may include the issuance of Eurobonds for specific projects. Our long-held geopolitical view supports overweighting Euro Area risk assets, given economic momentum and valuations. However, near-term political risks in Italy are substantial and pose the main risk to our strategic view. Italy's Divine Comedy - Coming Soon To A Theater Near You? Early Italian elections - in September 2017, instead of February-May 2018 - have become a real possibility. Matteo Renzi, leader of the ruling Democratic Party (PD) and former prime minister, recently signaled that he would be willing to compromise on a new electoral law, and that it could pass as early as July, given a tentative agreement with the Forza Italia party of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. This would satisfy the condition of President Sergio Mattarella that a new electoral law be passed before elections can proceed. What does this development mean for markets? Italian political elites share the same integrationist goals of their European peers. There is no logic in Italian independence from the EU. Rome's ability to patrol its coastline for smugglers bringing in migrants would not improve with independence, nor would its ability to negotiate a low price for Russian natural gas. Italy is, as much as any European country, in terminal decline as a geopolitical power. Membership in the EU is therefore a natural, and realist, response to its weakness. In addition, exiting the monetary union would be fraught with risks that would overwhelm any benefits that Italian exports may gain from devaluation. It is highly unlikely that Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands would allow Italy - the Euro Area's third largest economy - to set a precedent of using massive currency devaluation while maintaining access to the Common Market. Rome would in fact break its Maastricht Treaty obligations. These stipulate that every member state, save for Denmark and the U.K., must become a member of the EMU. It would likely be evicted from both the EU and the Common Market. Furthermore, as we discussed in our September net assessment of Italy, the country's 19th nineteenth century unification has never made much sense.7 We would go so far as to argue that Euro Area amalgamation makes more sense than the unification of Italy. Northern Italy remains as much part of "core Europe" as London, the Rhineland, or the Netherlands, whereas the south - the Mezzogiorno - might as well be in the Balkans. We do not see how Rome would afford the Mezzogiorno on its own without access to both the EU's markets and ECB-induced low financing costs. All that said, the median Italian voter is not buying the Euro Area at the moment. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt Euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 50% (Chart 11). Similarly, a plurality of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 12). Chart 11Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Chart 12Italians Willing To Go Solo? Of course, only about a third of Italians identify themselves as only "Italians," largely in line with the Euro Area average and nowhere near the trend in Britain, where the share of the public that feels exclusively British has generally ranged from half to two-thirds (Chart 13). Nevertheless, the Euroskeptic trend in Italy is real and jeopardizes European integration. Our high-conviction view that European politics would be a "red herring" in 2017 was originally based on data that showed that voters in the Netherlands, France, and Germany increasingly supported European integration. This allowed us to dismiss polls that suggested that Euroskeptic politicians - such as Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen - would do well in this year's elections. Even if they did perform well, the median voter's stance on European integration would force such policymakers to modify their Euroskepticism. This process has already happened in Spain (Podemos), Finland (The Finns, formerly known as the True Finns), and Greece (SYRIZA). In Italy, however, the median voter's Euroskepticism has not abated. As such, parties such as the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega Norde (LN) have no political incentive to modify their Euroskepticism. In fact, LN has done the opposite, evolving from a liberal and pro-EU regional sovereignty movement into a far-right, anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic, and nationalist Italian party -- a full brand overhaul. The timing of the upcoming election is difficult to forecast. Nonetheless, Renzi's compromise on changing electoral rules has now increased the probability that the election be held in Q4 2017, instead of Q1 2018. Renzi reportedly favors the same date as the German election, September 24. To accomplish this timetable, the new electoral law would have to be rushed through Italy's bicameral Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies - the lower house - is expected to vote on the compromise law in the first week of June, with the Senate passing the law by July 7. Given that the top four parties all seem to agree with adopting a German-style electoral system - proportional representation, with parties required to gain at least 5% of the vote to gain any seats - this ambitious timeline is possible. However, there are still some minor outstanding issues, which could drag out the process until the fall. In addition, local elections scheduled for June 11 (with a second-round run-off on June 25) could change the calculus of the ruling PD. If Renzi's party underperforms, he may back away from early elections, although the message would be that a strong populist performance in early 2018 is more likely. Polls have not budged much for the past 18 months, although Renzi's PD lost support around the time of its failed December 2016 constitutional referendum (Chart 14). The market may find solace in the fact that the revised electoral law would grant no "majority-bonus" to the winner, virtually ensuring that the Euroskeptic M5S cannot govern on its own. Chart 13Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Chart 14Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck The risk to the market, however, is that M5S outperforms and then creates a limited coalition with right-wing Euroskeptics. Such a coalition could have the singular goal of calling a "non-binding, consultative" referendum on Italy's Euro Area membership. The official M5S line is that it would call such a referendum "if fiscal policies of the Euro Area did not change." Either way, the Italian constitution forbids referendums on international treaties, but a consultative referendum would give impetus to Euroskeptic parties to start negotiating a Euro Area exit for the country. There are two reasons why such an outcome is possible, if not our base scenario. First, a German-style 5% threshold will eliminate the votes cast for a number of minor parties from the overall calculation. These currently combine to make up about 18% of the total vote. This means that the parties that meet the 5% minimum will gain a larger share of seats in the parliament than they gained of the overall popular vote (82% of the vote will hold 100% of the seats), as is the case in Germany. There is a chance that both the PD and M5S get a considerable seat boost in the final tally that puts them close an overall majority. Second, much will hinge on whether the right wing - and Euroskeptic - Fratelli d'Italia (FdI) enter parliament. They are currently polling at about 5% of the vote. If they gain seats, it would significantly increase the percentage of total seats held by Euroskeptic parties. There is no evidence at the moment that M5S, which is on the left of the policy spectrum, would contemplate such an electoral alliance with LN and FdI. The party remains opposed to any coalitions and we suspect that it would not break its pledge to pursue the highly risky strategy of calling a referendum on the Euro Area. The M5S stands for a lot of different things: anti-corruption, anti-establishment, youth empowerment, etc. Euroskepticism is one of its pillars, not a singular objective. In fact, party leader Beppe Grillo recently attempted to abandon the Euroskeptic alliance with UKIP at the European Parliament to join the ultra-liberal, and Europhile, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Various factions vying for control of the movement oscillate between overt Euroskepticism, aloofness toward Europe, and open support for European integration. In addition, Italian voters may adjust ahead of the election by switching their support away from the various minor parties currently polling below 5% and toward the four major parties. This will likely benefit the ruling PD more than any other party. Out of the four parties highly unlikely to cross the 5% threshold - Campo Progressista (CP), Movimento Democratica e Progressista (MDP), Alternativa Popolare (MP), and Sinistra Italiana (SI) - three are centrist or aligned with the PD. One (Sinistra Italiana) would likely see its voters split between the PD and M5S (Chart 15). Such vote migration would clearly benefit the center-left PD, which Renzi is likely counting on in accepting the German-style proportional electoral system.8 Chart 15Most Minor Party Votes ##br##Would Help Ruling Democrats Bottom Line: Investors trying to make sense of the Italian election will find relief in the new electoral law. A purely German-style system - given the current level of factionalism in Italian politics - is unlikely to produce a populist government in Italy. In fact, the center-left PD could see a boost in support as voters switch away from minor parties. The tentative compromise on the electoral law has both increased risks by making an earlier election more likely and decreased risks by reducing the probability of an anti-market result. That said, there is still a possibility that M5S crosses the ideological aisle to form an alliance with right-wing Euroskeptics to try to take Italy out of the Euro Area. We doubt that they will do so. Nonetheless, it will be appropriate to hedge such a risk in currency markets closer to the date of the election, once the date is known. We therefore closed our long EUR/USD recommendation last week for a gain of 3.48%. Whatever the outcome of the election, Italian political risks will remain the main threat to European integration (and assets) going forward. We therefore expect the ECB to keep one eye on Italy, forcing it to be less hawkish than it otherwise would be. We will explore Italian politics and economy further in an upcoming report with our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. U.K.: The Election Is About G The latest polling averages show that Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party maintains a 5% lead over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, despite Labour's remarkable rally since early elections were called on April 18 (Chart 16). One projection of actual parliamentary seats that takes into account the crucial factor of voter turnout suggest that the Tories could add from 15 to 34 seats to their 2015 take of 330 seats - and this roughly matches our back-of-the-envelope calculation that the Tories could pick up 11 seats on account of the Brexit referendum (Table 1).9 Chart 16Labour Revives On Snap Election Table 1Referendum Results Offer Some Simple Gains For Tories There have been only two other cases in recent memory in which Britain's incumbent party led by double digits two months ahead of an election: 1983 and 2001. In the first case, Margaret Thatcher followed up the hugely successful Falklands campaign by expanding her popular support in the final two weeks to win a huge 144-seat majority. In the second case, Tony Blair lost some of his lead but still won the election handily.10 There has not been a case in recent memory where a double-digit lead dropped into single digits as quickly as it did this past month. Moreover, looking at the latest individual polls, it is too soon to say that Labour's rally has ended. Indeed, YouGov's model even shows the Conservatives losing their majority.11 Snap elections are always a gamble, as we have stressed throughout this campaign.12 There is no question that Labour has the momentum and May is feeling the heat. Yet the Tories have a fairly solid foundation of support at the moment. First, they are still polling above 40% support, almost 10% higher than before the referendum, reflecting the rally-around-the-flag effect after voters' surprising decision to leave the EU. They even poll above 40% among working-class voters, the original base of Labour, and the country's aging demographic profile also heavily favors them. (Youth turnout would have to surprise upward to upset the Tories.) Second, the Tory strategy of gobbling up supporters of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) has succeeded (Chart 17). UKIP has no raison d'être after achieving its foundational goal of Brexit. The Conservative Party's decision to hold a referendum on the EU was, in fact, driven by this rivalry from the right flank. UKIP posed the chief threat to the Tories through its ability to dilute their vote share in Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system. Now, almost all conservative voters will vote for the Conservative Party, while Labour must still compete with the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Scottish National Party, and Welsh Plaid Cymru in various constituencies (Chart 18). Chart 17Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Chart 18Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Third, while May's popularity is merely converging with her party's still-buoyant level, Corbyn is less popular than both May and his own party (Chart 19). Corbyn still has a net negative favorability and is seen as less "decisive" and less "in touch" with voters than May. Fourth, voters still see Brexit as the most important issue of the election (Chart 20) and May as the best candidate to manage the tricky exit negotiations ahead. Because Brexit is the driver, the benefit of the doubt goes to the Tories. The 2015 elections, the EU referendum, the polls since the referendum, and the parliamentary votes (driven by popular pressure) enshrining the referendum result all suggest a great deal of public momentum on this key issue. The only truly historic development that could have broken this momentum, given that the economy is holding up, is the Tory decision to seek a "hard Brexit," i.e. exit from the EU's Common Market. Yet opinion polls show that Brexit still has the support of a majority of likely voters; moreover, 55% of voters would rather have "no exit deal" than "a bad exit deal."13 If voters still see this as the defining issue, then the Tories still have a key advantage. On the other hand, perceptions of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have improved rapidly and May's simultaneous popularity slump is especially important in this election. She is a "takeover prime minister" (having initially gained the office when Cameron resigned rather than leading her party into an election as the presumed prime minister) and thus highly vulnerable. This election is largely about her need for a "personal mandate."14 Her political missteps (both real and perceived) are very much at issue in this particular election. Chart 19May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour If polls continue to narrow, the election could produce a "hung parliament," in which no single party holds the 326 seats necessary for a majority in the House of Commons. What should investors expect in that scenario? First, May would have the chance to rule a minority government or form a coalition. A minority government would be weak, vulnerable to collapse under pressure, and would have a harder time controlling the Brexit negotiations. As for a coalition, there is very little chance that the other major parties would cooperate with her - the Liberal Democrats would not reprise their role as coalition partner from 2010-15. But there is a slim chance that the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland could unite with the Tories to obtain a majority. The DUP has not exercised real power in a century, literally, and several of its members do not normally even take their seats in Westminster. However, the party is Euroskeptic and could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Suffice it to say that this outcome is not impossible - the Tories have been courting the DUP for months and the existence of a historic "common cause" changes the usual parliamentary dynamic. Still, this arrangement would be highly unusual, causing a massive uproar, and would lead to all kinds of uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Second, assuming May fails, the Labour Party would have to rule in the minority or form a coalition (if informal) with the Scottish National Party, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and others. Here are the most likely outcomes of such an arrangement, in broad brush strokes: Brexit will in all likelihood proceed, given that all parties have professed respect for the referendum outcome. Since the new government would likely not seek to curtail immigration as strictly, it could seek to retain membership in the Common Market. However, a la carte membership in the Common Market remains the greatest difficulty with the EU member states, and therefore it is possible that even Labour would have to accept the logic of exiting the Common Market. In fact, we could see Labour's insistence on access to the Common Market producing more acrimony with the EU than the Tory clean-break strategy. Nevertheless, the odds of a "Brexit cliff" in which the U.K. exits without a trade deal would fall from their already low level, given Labour's unwillingness to let that happen. Despite moving ahead with Brexit, a Labour-led government would increase the relatively low probability of an eventual reversal of the decision, given that it would be more inclined to accept or encourage such an outcome in the face of a bad exit deal, a recession, or other challenges that cause public opinion to shift. The Scottish National Party would probably sideline its demands for a second Scottish independence referendum - especially given that polls supporting a second referendum have floundered for the time being - though not permanently.15 Fiscal spending would increase as a result of Labour's and the SNP's campaign promises and greater focus on domestic social issues. Even if May avoids squandering her party's majority (our baseline case), there are several important takeaways from her drop in the polls: Chart 21Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes The median voter wants government support: The Labour Party's rally began as soon as elections were called, with left-leaning voters switching away from the LibDems once they saw a chance to challenge the ruling party. But the Tories took a hit from May's unprecedented (and publicly awkward) reversal on a party manifesto pledge only days after publishing it (Chart 21). The pledge, now infamous as the "dementia tax," was an attempt at fiscal tightening by which the government would include the value of an elderly person's home in the assessment of their financial means when it came to government support for social care. By contrast, Labour has rallied on the back of a party manifesto that promises fiscal expansion in various categories, including £7.7 billion additional funds for health care, social care, and nursing. More broadly, National Health Service funding, rent caps, and a higher "living wage" are the top four campaign pledges that gain above 60% popular support. As we elucidated last year, the two economies that most enthusiastically embraced a laissez-faire model - the U.S. and the U.K. - are now experiencing the most effective swing to the left.16 The U.K. campaign confirms that, with the Tories minimizing cuts and Labour offering greater spending. Brexit means Brexit: 69% of the public claims that government should follow the referendum outcome, and 52% favor Theresa May's proposed Brexit strategy. The opposition parties are not openly opposing the referendum outcome, as mentioned. Moreover, Labour's pledge to prevent the U.K. leaving the bloc without a trade deal is one of the least popular campaign pledges (only 31% approve), while the Liberal Democrats' pledge to hold a second nationwide referendum on the outcome of the exit talks is also unpopular (34% approve) (Chart 22). Labour is recovering support by focusing on its bread-and-butter, left-wing, social platform. Terrorism is not driving voters: The tragic terrorist attacks at parliament, Manchester, and London Bridge have hardly given May and the Tories any additional support despite being the party viewed as stronger on security. Amid a bull market in terrorism, British voters, like European peers, are becoming somewhat inured to periodic attacks against "soft" targets.17 Health is a bigger concern than immigration: A large majority of Britons think immigration has been too high in recent years, but only about 25% think it is a major issue facing the country, compared with 43% who cite health care as a major issue (see Chart 20 above). These are not completely independent issues because many people believe that immigrants are putting pressure on scarce health care resources. Immigration is closely tied to Brexit and will remain a burning issue if the government does not convince voters that it is more vigilant. But the Labour Party's greater support on health care (as well as education and other social issues) is a growing liability to the Tories as Brexit becomes more settled. If Brexit was a revolt against the elites, it is not necessarily the only manifestation of that revolt. The elitist Tories should be careful that they do not rest on their laurels having been on the right side of that particular issue. The key takeaway is that, aside from Brexit, fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then.18 That is also why the ruling party has already eased fiscal policy. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline to beyond 2022 (Chart 23). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 24). The Tories are also claiming that they will reboot the country's industrial strategy to improve productivity, which will become all the more imperative if they even partially follow through on their pledge to cut immigration numbers from the current annual ~250,000 to under 100,000, which will necessarily reduce labor force growth and thus also potential GDP growth.19 The National Productivity Investment Fund will need a projected £23 billion just to get on its feet. Given that Labour is proposing even more ambitious spending increases (£49 billion additional spending through 2022), the direction of U.K. politics - away from austerity - is clear regardless of the election outcome. Finally, our colleagues at BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy expect the Bank of England to maintain loose monetary policy for the foreseeable future, being unable to turn more hawkish against inflation in the context of continued risks and uncertainties related to Brexit.20 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative for the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports,21 the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, could weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. As such, we closed our short USD/GBP last week for a gain of 3.34%. Bottom Line: We do not expect a hung parliament; most signs suggest that the Tories will retain at least a weak majority. However, a hung parliament that produces a Labour-SNP alliance would not likely reverse Brexit (though it would make a reversal more conceivable). Such an alliance could eventually result in an exit deal that is both less politically logical than the Tory deal (because London would pay to stay in the Common Market yet have less say in how it is managed) and more favorable to the British economy in the long run (because retaining the benefits of Common Market access). But this is not a foregone conclusion. We maintain our view that Brexit itself has largely ceased to have concrete market-relevant impacts other than a decline in Britain's long-term potential GDP growth. There are two reasons for this. First, May has ruled out membership in the Common Market and thus has removed a potential source of acrimony with Brussels over any "special treatment." Second, the EU does not want to precipitate a crisis in the U.K. that could reverberate back onto the continental economy. Investment Implications We remain strategically overweight European equities relative to their U.S. peers, a trade that has returned 7.39% thus far. We would remind clients that we closed our long GBP/USD and long EUR/USD tactical trades last week for 3.34% and 3.48% gains, respectively. We are also booking a 3.45% profit on our "One China Policy" strategic trade (long Chinese equities as against their Taiwanese and Hong Kong peers). We still think policymakers will do everything they can to keep China's economic growth stable ahead of the party congress this fall, but, as we discussed in our May 24 missive,22 the decision to tighten financial regulation is risky and threatens to cause unintended consequences. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “China Down, India Up?” dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “ECB: All About China?” dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration,” dated November 3, 2011; and “Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics,” dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see European Commission, “Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union,” May 31, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 6 Please see European Commission, “EU Investor Presentation,” April 7, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno,” dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The only minor party that is Euroskeptic, FdI, is just close enough to the 5% threshold that its voters are unlikely to abandon it. They will not likely give the Euroskeptic Lega Norde and M5S much of a boost. 9 Please see Lord Ashcroft Polls, “2017 Seat Estimates: Overall,” May 2017, available at lordashcroftpolls.com. 10 In the 1997 election, Tony Blair and Labour led by double digits, but they were in the opposition. Their lead in the polls shrank slightly before Blair won a 178-seat majority, even larger than Thatcher’s 144 seats in 1983 and Clement Attlee’s 147 seats in 1945. 11 Please see YouGov, “2017 UK General Election Model,” accessed June 6, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!” dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see Anthony Wells, “Attitudes to Brexit: Everything We Know So Far,” March 29, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 14 Please see footnote 12 above. 15 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?” dated March 30, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?” dated April 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “A Bull Market For Terror,” dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?” dated July 15, 2016, and “Brexit Update: Red Dawn Over Britain” in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Redistribution,” dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, “With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU,” dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Adventures In Fence-Sitting,” dated May 16, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see “Brexit: A Brave New World” in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The ‘What Can You Do For Me’ World?” dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets,” dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

The S&P materials sector has been unable to hold its ground, despite the softening U.S. dollar and boost to global manufacturing output this year. Instead, the sector has taken its cue from commodity prices, and leading indicators thereof, such as the ratio of Latin American to Emerging Asian equities (bottom panel). The latter has collapsed in recent weeks, which is notable because it has been highly correlated with materials sector relative performance for over a decade. While it is tempting to lean into materials sector weakness given that global output growth is on the mend, we are resisting any urge to upgrade given the negative message from commodity-sensitive equities and prospects for a cooling in Chinese economic growth in the second half of the year. Materials sector operating leverage is unlikely to become a positive force until the pricing power outlook brightens. Stay underweight.

Highlights Although it is tempting to argue that emerging markets are in a new era where past correlations no longer matter, our belief is that it is only a matter of time until fundamentals reassert themselves. Several measures of equity markets have reached or are close to their previous structural peaks. In the second half of 1990s, booming U.S. and European growth as well as the tech mania, did not preclude a bear market in commodities and EM financial markets. Overall, EM risk assets will not be immune to selling off considerably from the current overbought levels if Chinese growth and commodities prices surprise to the downside, as we expect. Falling commodities prices will weigh on Indonesia's terms of trade. Equity investors should maintain an underweight position in this market and currency traders should continue shorting the rupiah. Feature A New Era? Money has been flowing into EM financial markets, irrespective of the evolution of many economic and financial variables that have in the past shaped markets dynamics. Indeed, EM share prices and currencies have refused rolling over despite a relapse in a number of variables they have historically been correlated with. EM share prices have continued to surge, even though the aggregate EM manufacturing PMI has rolled over (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Unsustainable Decoupling The recent relapse in the EM manufacturing PMI has not hurt EM currencies either (Chart I-2, top panel). In addition, EM currencies have diverged from commodities prices, an unprecedented historical occurrence (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The same applies to EM versus DM relative equity performance. Chart I-3 demonstrates that EM share prices have outperformed their DM counterparts year to date, even though the EM manufacturing PMI considerably underperformed DM's. Chart I-2Untenable Divergence Chart I-3Relative Share Prices And Relative PMIs Notably, EM stock prices have even defied the recent setback in EM net earnings revisions (Chart I-4). Typically, the latter correlate with swings in share prices, but this time both variables have diverged. Finally, it is important to note that this phenomena of decoupling cannot be explained by the performance of technology stocks. EM share prices excluding technology companies have still rallied, albeit much less, despite the decline in EM net earnings revisions and the EM manufacturing PMI. Remarkably, China's H shares - the index that does not include U.S.-listed Chinese internet/social media companies and is instead "heavy" in banks and "old economy" stocks - have still ignored both the drop in China's manufacturing PMI and rising local interest rates (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Even Analysts' Net EPS ##br##Revisions Have Rolled Over Chart I-5Puzzling... One could argue that the dominant macro drivers of EM in recent months have been the U.S. dollar and U.S. bond yields, both of which have downshifted since mid-December 2016. If the greenback and expectations of Federal Reserve policy continue to shape EM performance, the outlook is not much better. The basis is that the Fed will likely continue to hike interest rates if global stocks continue to rally. Notably, U.S. corporate bond yields/spreads are very low, the dollar is already down quite a bit, U.S. asset prices are reflating and U.S. economic growth is decent. If the Fed does not normalize interest rates now, when and under what conditions will it? Similarly, investor sentiment on the U.S. dollar is no longer bullish, and the market expects only 44 basis points in Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. The latter is a low bar. We maintain that the dollar's selloff - even though it has lasted longer than we previously expected - is late, especially versus EM currencies. Bottom Line: Although it is tempting to argue that emerging markets are in a new era where past correlations no longer matter, our belief is that it is only a matter of time until fundamentals reassert themselves. As and when this happens - our hunch is that it is a matter of weeks not months - EM risk assets will sell off materially and underperform their DM counterparts. Signs Of A Top? Or Is This Time Different? The EM equity rally has been facilitated by the tech mania occurring worldwide as well as by falling financial market volatility and risk premia - leading investors to bet on EM carry trades. A relevant question is whether these trends are close to the end or have much further to go. We have the following observations: EM share prices in local currency terms, as well as the KOSPI and Taiwanese TSE indexes in U.S. dollar terms, all are testing their previous highs which they have never broken out from (Chart I-6). The question we would ask is: Why should this time be different, or why would these indexes break out this time around? In our opinion, EM fundamentals, including the outlook for EPS growth, remain poor. We have elaborated on this issue at length in previous reports1 and stand by our assessment. On many metrics, the U.S. equity market is expensive, and the rally is overstretched (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Facing A Major ##br##Technical Resistance Chart I-7U.S. Stocks Are Expensive ##br##And Overstretched These charts do not provide clues for the timing of a reversal, but when all these ratios reach their previous secular tops, investors should be critically examining the investment outlook. Our take is as follows: Without a broad-based U.S. corporate profit recession, a major bear market in the S&P 500 is not likely, but share prices could soon hit a major resistance and correct meaningfully from the current expensive and overbought levels. While EM stocks are not expensive, the outlook for their share prices is negative because we expect EM earnings to shrink again by early next year1. Finally, not only is U.S. equity market volatility extremely muted but EM equity as well as U.S. bond market volatility are testing their previous lows (Chart I-8). When implied volatility reached these low levels in the past, it marked a major market reversal. Bottom Line: Several measures of equity market performance have reached or are close to their previous structural peaks and financial markets volatility is at record lows. While one can make the case that this time is different and this EM equity rally will persist, we continue to err on the side of caution. Tech Mania And EM In The 1990s A recent narrative in the marketplace has been as follows: given the share of tech stocks' market cap has risen to 26%, and commodities sectors presently account for only 14% of the EM MSCI benchmark, it makes sense that EM equities have decoupled from commodities prices and have become correlated with tech stocks and DM growth. In this respect, it is instrumental to revisit what happened in the second half of the 1990s, when global tech/internet and telecom stocks were in the midst of a mania like social media/tech stocks nowadays. We have the following observations on this matter: EM share prices, currencies, and bonds plunged in the second half of the 1990s, even though U.S. and European real GDP growth was extremely strong - 4.5% and 3% on average, respectively (Chart I-9, top panel) - and the S&P 500 was in a full-fledged bull market. Chart I-8Volatility: As Low As It Gets Chart I-9EM Stocks And DM Growth In The 1990s EM share prices collapsed in 1997-'98, even though U.S. and European import volumes were expanding at a double-digit rates (Chart I-9, middle panel). Furthermore, the crises originated in emerging Asian countries such as Thailand, Korea and Malaysia that were large exporters to advanced economies. Besides, the share and importance of the U.S. and European economies was much larger 20 years ago than it is now. Back then, China was negligible in terms of its impact on EM in general and commodities in particular. The question is, if an economic boom in the U.S., and Europe in the second half of the 1990s did not preclude crises in export-oriented economies in East Asia, why would moderate DM growth today - as well as their much smaller share of global trade - boost EM share prices from already elevated levels. Twenty years ago, EM share prices fell along with declining U.S. bond yields (Chart I-10). The Fed hiked rates only once by 25 basis points in March 1997. In the past 18 months, the Fed has already hiked 3 times. In fact, the U.S. dollar was in a bull market in the second half of the 1990s, despite falling U.S. bond yields during that period. EM stocks collapsed along with falling commodities prices in 1997-'98 (Chart I-11, top panel) even though the S&P 500 was in the midst of a major bull market (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10The 1990s: EM Bear Market ##br##Was Not Due To Rising U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-11EM Stocks, Commodities And The S&P 500 Importantly, the mania sectors of the late 1990s - technology and telecom - accounted for approximately 33% of EM market cap in January 2000. Presently, following an exponential rally and outperformance, technology and social media/internet stocks make up 27% of the EM MSCI benchmark. In addition, the market cap of energy and materials companies stood at 19% of the MSCI EM equity benchmark in January 2000, compared with 14% presently (Chart I-12). Hence, the market cap of commodities sectors was not substantially larger in the late 1990s than today. Finally, Korean and Taiwanese bourses have historically had a high positive correlation with both oil and industrial metals prices (Chart I-13). The reason for this relationship is that both economies are leveraged to the global business cycle, and commodities prices are often driven by global trade cycles. Chart I-13Asian Bourses And Commodities Prices Bottom Line: In the late 1990s, EM crises/bear markets occurred despite booming U.S. and European growth, and at a time when these economies were much more important to EM than they are today. The EM bear market also occurred amid the S&P 500 bull market and falling U.S. bond yields. To be sure, we are not suggesting that everything is identical between today and the 1990s, but all the above suggests to us that EM risk assets will not be immune to selling off considerably from the current overbought levels if Chinese growth and commodities prices surprise to the downside, as we expect. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM Profits, China And Commodities Redux", dated May 31, 2017, link available on page 16. Indonesia: Facing Commodities Headwinds (Again) Decelerating Chinese growth and falling commodities prices will weigh on Indonesia's exchange rate (Chart II-1). In turn, not only will the currency depreciation undermine foreign currency returns to investors in stocks and local bonds, but it will also exert upward pressure on local rates. The latter will extend the credit downturn and weigh on domestic demand. Chinese imports of Indonesian coal have begun falling in volume terms (Chart II-2). Consistently, Chinese thermal coal prices - the type of coal that China buys from Indonesia - have also rolled over decisively after rallying sharply in 2016. Chart II-1Indonesia Currency ##br##And Commodities Prices Chart II-2Indonesia's Coal Exports ##br##To China And Coal Prices Indonesia's exports of base metals and oil/gas to China are also declining in U.S. dollar terms. Commodities exports account for around 30% of Indonesia's total exports. As such, falling commodities prices will lead to negative terms of trade for this nation. On the domestic front, consumer demand remains sluggish. Although auto sales have revived, motorcycles sales are still declining for a fourth consecutive year (Chart II-3). Meanwhile, capital expenditures are tame. Capital goods imports are no longer contracting, but there has been no recovery so far (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Consumer Spending: ##br##Auto And Motorcycle Sales Chart II-4Indonesia: Capex Is Sluggish Bank loan growth has not recovered much (Chart II-5) despite low interest rates and a benign external backdrop since early 2016, specifically the revival in commodities prices and large foreign portfolio inflows. NPLs on banks' balance sheet will rise further due to weak growth and lower commodities prices. That, in turn, will dent banks' willingness to grow their loan book. In regard to the credit cycle, Indonesia might be following India's example with a several year lag. In India's banking system, high NPLs have curtailed public banks' desire to lend and, consequently, capital spending has been in disarray. Similarly, Indonesia's credit-sensitive consumer spending and investment expenditure growth will disappoint in the next 12 months as credit growth slows anew. Finally, at a trailing price-earnings ratio of 19.6, equity valuations are not attractive. The poor growth outlook that we foresee does not justify such high multiples. Besides, relative performance of this bourse versus the overall EM equity benchmark is stuck between technical support and resistance (Chart II-6). We are biased to believe that it will relapse from the current juncture. Chart II-5Indonesia's Credit Cycle Is Not Out Of The Woods Chart II-6Indonesian Equity Relative Performance Bottom Line: Weaker commodities prices emanating from slower Chinese growth will hurt Indonesia's currency. We recommend equity investors to keep an underweight position in this bourse. Also, we remain short IDR versus the U.S. dollar and underweight local currency bonds within the EM universe. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Something's Got To Give Last Friday's disappointing employment report reinforced the bond market's recent strength. The 10-year Treasury yield reached a new 2017 low of 2.15%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate broke below 1.8% and the overnight index swap curve is now priced for only 47 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Increasingly, the bond market is discounting two different future states of the world that cannot possibly coexist. Decelerating wage growth has caused the market to expect fewer Fed rate hikes, while concurrently, the cost of long-maturity inflation protection has fallen and the yield curve has flattened (Chart 1). This means the market expects that poor wage growth and inflation will cause the Fed to back away from its expected pace of two more rate hikes this year, but also that this relent will not be sufficient to prompt a recovery in economic growth or inflation. This dichotomy cannot exist for long. Either wage growth and inflation will bounce back in the second half of the year allowing the Fed to lift rates twice more in 2017 (our base case expectation), or inflation will continue to disappoint in which case the Fed will slow its pace of hikes. In both cases long-maturity Treasury yields should head higher, led by an increasing cost of inflation compensation. Stay at below benchmark duration. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 113 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Limited inflationary pressure will keep monetary policy accommodative enough to ensure excess returns consistent with carry. However, corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2) and we do not see much potential for spread tightening from current levels. BEA data show that EBITD contracted in Q1, causing the annual growth rate to tick back below zero (panel 4). Meanwhile, gross issuance has been strong so far this year, suggesting that leverage will show an uptick in Q1 when the Flow of Funds data are released later this week. This aligns with our observation that, historically, net leverage - defined as total debt less cash as a percent of trailing EBITD - has never declined unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. For now, rising leverage will limit the amount of spread tightening, but shouldn't lead to negative excess returns. That will only occur when inflationary pressures are more pronounced and the Fed steps up the pace of tightening - probably sometime next year. Energy related sectors still appear cheap on our model (Table 3), and have outperformed the overall corporate index this year even though the oil price has fallen. Remain overweight. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in May. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month and, at 362 bps, it is currently 18 bps above its 2017 low. While the average spread on the junk index is a mere 38 bps above its post-crisis low, our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread is 204 bps, only slightly below its historical average (Chart 3). Assuming our forecast for default losses is correct, a default-adjusted spread in this range has historically coincided with positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average excess return of 82 bps. Our estimate of 12-month forward default losses is calculated using Moody's baseline assumption for the speculative grade default rate, which stands at 2.96%. We also incorporate an expected recovery rate of 47%. This expectation for a continued decline in the default rate squares with trends in corporate lending standards (which are once again easing), industrial production (which is accelerating) and job cut announcements (which are trending lower). Weak first quarter profit growth will be a headwind if it persists, but we expect it will recover alongside the broader economy in Q2. Overall, with muted inflationary pressures, an improving default back-drop and still moderate valuations, we think junk bonds will deliver small positive excess returns during the next 12 months. Stay overweight. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in May. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) rose 2 bps on the month, but this was entirely offset by a 2 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The most important issue for mortgage investors at the moment is when and how the Fed will cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. We have written extensively on this topic in recent weeks,1 and through Fed communications have learned the following: The unwinding of the balance sheet will start before the end of this year (assuming the economic outlook does not deteriorate substantially) Both MBS and Treasury securities will be impacted The process will be "tapered" with monthly caps set on the amount of securities that will be allowed to run off. The caps will gradually increase according to a pre-set schedule. MBS OAS are already starting to look attractive, especially relative to Aaa-rated credit (Chart 4). But we are hesitant to move back into MBS at current levels. OAS have further upside relative to trends in net issuance (panel 4), and the increased supply from the end of Fed reinvestment will only add to the widening pressure. Remain underweight. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 86 bps. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors outperformed by 18 bps and 38 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors outperformed by 7 bps and 9 bps, respectively. The Sovereign sector underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 12 bps on the month. Sovereigns underperformed in May even though the broad trade-weighted dollar depreciated by 1.4%. Similarly, Mexican debt - which carries the largest weighting in the Sovereign index - underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 22 bps, even though the peso continued to appreciate versus the dollar (Chart 5). With U.S. growth likely to rebound following a weak Q1, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar should appreciate in the second half of this year. Meanwhile, our Emerging Markets Strategy thinks that Mexico's central bank could deliver another 25 bps rate hike, but it won't be long before tighter policy becomes a drag on consumer spending.2 The peso could stay well-bid for now, but the longer run trend is for a weaker peso versus the U.S. dollar. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer attractive spreads, after adjusting for credit rating and duration, compared to most U.S. corporate sectors. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities within an overall underweight allocation to the Government-Related Index. Municipal Bonds: Cut To Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 85 basis points in May (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio declined 8% on the month, and is now more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. In a recent report,3 we noted that the current weakness in state & local government revenue growth mostly reflected the fall-out from the mid-2014 commodity price slump. As such, we expect that revenue growth will rebound in the months ahead and that state & local government net borrowing will decline. However, this eventuality is now fully discounted in M/T yield ratios (Chart 6, panel 3). Further, M/T yield ratios benefited from a steep decline in issuance during the past few months (bottom panel), and the recent uptick in visible supply suggests that the tailwind from declining issuance is about to shift. Factor in the uncertainty surrounding tax reform and a potential infrastructure program, and it is difficult to make the case for much tighter yield ratios. We recommend investors reduce municipal bond exposure to underweight (2 out of 5). Investors should continue to capture the premium in long-maturity munis relative to short maturities (panel 2), and also favor the debt of commodity-dependent states where tax revenues should grow more quickly. In particular, Aaa-rated Texas General Obligation bonds offer a premium of 14 bps versus the overall Aaa muni curve at the 10-year maturity point. The average premium offered by other Aaa-rated states is -0.6 bps. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted lower and flattened in May. The 2/10 slope flattened 8 basis points and the 5/30 slope flattened 3 bps. For the second consecutive month yields remained stable out to the 2-year maturity point, but declined further out the curve. As stated on the first page of this report, the recent flattening of the Treasury curve indicates that the market expects the Fed will maintain a policy that is too restrictive for inflation to return to target. We think this is flat out wrong. Either core inflation will turn higher in the second half of this year, allowing the Fed to lift rates twice more in 2017. Or, core inflation will remain depressed. In the latter scenario, the Fed would adopt a more dovish policy stance until inflation starts to rise. In either case, the cost of inflation compensation at the long-end of the curve is not high enough, and it will cause the curve to steepen as it rises (Chart 7). We previously documented that the positive correlation between TIPS breakeven rates and the slope of the yield curve still holds during Fed rate hike cycles.4 We continue to recommend positioning for a steeper 2/10 curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade returned 0 bps in May, but is still 26 bps in the money since inception on December 20, 2016. While this trade no longer benefits from the extreme cheapness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve (panel 3), it will continue to outperform as TIPS breakevens widen and the curve steepens in the second half of the year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 107 basis points in May. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate fell 11 bps on the month and, at 1.79%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. A series of disappointing inflation reports have led to weakness in TIPS breakevens so far this year. Year-over-year trimmed mean PCE inflation fell to 1.75% in April, all the way from a peak of 1.91% as recently as January (Chart 8). As we discussed in two recent reports,5 a Phillips Curve model- based on lagged inflation, the employment gap, non-oil import prices and inflation expectations - forcefully predicts that core inflation will trend higher for the remainder of the year (panel 4). In a base case scenario in which both the unemployment rate and the trade-weighted dollar remain flat at current levels, the model projects that core PCE inflation will exceed 2% by the end of this year. In fact, we find it difficult to create a set of reasonable economic assumptions that don't result in core PCE inflation at (or above) the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year end. While we anticipate a rebound in core inflation between now and the end of the year, if that rebound does not seem to be materializing by the end of the summer, the Fed is likely to adopt a more dovish policy stance. Such a policy shift would lend support to TIPS breakeven wideners. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +52 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 7 bps on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. In a recent report, we highlighted that consumer balance sheets are in their best shape since prior to the start of the housing bubble.6 As such, consumer ABS should remain a relatively low risk investment. However, some signs of stress are beginning to emerge, particularly in the sub-prime auto space. According to the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey, credit card lending standards tightened in Q4 of last year, but have since reverted into net easing territory (Chart 9). In contrast, auto loan lending standards continue to tighten and net losses on auto loans appear to have bottomed for the cycle. At least so far, auto ABS are not discounting much deterioration in credit quality. After adjusting for volatility, Aaa-rated auto ABS do not offer much of a spread pick-up relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS (panel 3) and the spread differential between non-Aaa auto ABS and Aaa auto ABS has fallen to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. We continue to recommend that investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within an overall overweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +52 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Apartment and office building prices are growing strongly, but retail sector property prices have been close to flat during the past year (bottom panel). Tighter lending standards and falling demand also suggest that credit stress is starting to mount in the commercial real estate sector. So far, this stress has manifested itself in rising retail and office delinquency rates, while multi-family delinquencies remain low (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +50 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 49 bps. The option-adjusted spread on Agency CMBS still looks attractive compared to other high-quality spread product: Agency MBS = 36 bps, Aaa consumer ABS = 39 bps, Agency bonds = 17 bps and Supranationals = 19 bps. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.41%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound. The U.S. PMI has dipped lower in recent months, but remains firmly entrenched above the 50 boom/bust line. Meanwhile, the Eurozone PMI continues to surge ahead. China's PMI is the real source of concern. It has recently dipped below 50, and there is a risk that tighter monetary policy could lead to further contraction in the near term (bottom panel).7 For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.15%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017, U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017, U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017 and U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017. All available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "A Time To Be Contrarian", dated April 5, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Fed Stick To Its Guns?", dated May 16, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017 and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017. Both available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Past Peak Pessimism", dated May 9, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon) Current Recommendation

Our thesis of a playable rally in energy services stocks (see our Weekly Report of 11 October, 2016 for more details) was based on three key factors: troughing rig counts, cresting global oil inventories and falling production growth. Clearly, our upgrade was early, but a review of leading profit indicators continues to signal that value creation abounds. The global rig count hit its nadir in 2015, and has staged its best recovery since 2009 (second panel), with a greater than 50% increase in oil-directed rig count since November, 2016. Importantly, the growth in total OECD oil inventories is moderating quickly with recent large storage draws. The OPEC 2.0 agreement to extend current production cuts through March 2018 means that non-OPEC production growth will need to accelerate to satisfy climbing global demand. Ongoing inventory rebalancing augurs well for even more robust oil field services demand. The key missing ingredient has been pricing power. The prior cycle's excesses created a large overhang. However, our pricing power proxy is finally exiting the deflation zone, and further gains loom later this year as utilization rates rise with rig counts. This should unlock the industry's substantial operating leverage. We are doubling down on our high-conviction overweight in the S&P energy services index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE- BHI, CAM, DO, ESV, FTI, HAL, HP, NOV, SLB, RIG.

Special Report

Highlights Overall Investment Grade (IG) Corporates: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, but keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. IG: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro IG: Stay underweight and keep spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce exposure to Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities. U.K. IG: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Feature Chart of the WeekCandidates For Additional Spread Convergence Back on January 24th, we published a Special Report that introduced specific Investment Grade (IG) corporate bond sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. to our model portfolio framework.1 The recommended weightings were based on the output from our sector relative value models for each region. We had presented those models on a semi-regular basis in the past, but without any specific numerical allocation among the sectors. By attaching actual weightings to each sector, within a "fully invested" model portfolio, we are now able to more accurately measure the aggregate success of our recommendations. In this follow-up report, we discuss the performance of our sector tilts since January, refresh our relative value models and present changes to our allocations. The broad conclusion is that, while our calls have done well over the past few months and our IG portfolios have outperformed the broad IG bond indices, it remains difficult to find compellingly cheap sectors (particularly in non-financial industries) given the overall tight level of corporate bond spreads. This is especially true in the Euro Area, where we see the poorest risk/reward tradeoff for IG exposure relative to the U.S. and U.K. We are more comfortable recommending an overweight stance on U.S. and U.K. IG corporates versus Euro Area equivalents, in line with our overall allocation in our main model portfolio. Given the tight overall level of spreads in all three regions, however, we are focusing our recommendations on sectors that have cheaper valuations but with riskiness closer to the overall IG indices - like Energy in the U.S. and Wireless in both the Euro Area and U.K. (Chart 1). Good Performance From Our Sector Tilts The performance of our sector recommendations has been reasonably solid since January (Chart 2). Our U.S. sector tilts added +5bps of excess return versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, coming mostly from our overweights in Energy and Financials. Within the Euro Area, we were able to generate +9bps of excess return versus government debt, also mainly from above-benchmark allocations to Energy and Financial names. In the U.K., our call to overweight Bank debt provided essentially all of our +23bps of outperformance versus Gilts. These strong excess returns came on top of a very strong performance for corporate debt since January 24th. Excess returns for IG in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. were 0.9%, 1.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The detailed breakdown of the returns by sector are shown in Appendix Tables at the back of this report. To determine the success rate of our sector tilts, we can define "winners" as sectors where we had an active view (i.e. not neutral) and where the relative performance of the sector versus the overall IG corporate index was in the direction of that active view. For example, our decision to go underweight Diversified Manufacturing in the Euro Area was a good one, as that sector had an excess return of 0.7%, well below that of the overall Euro Area IG index (a 1.3% excess return). We can define "losers" in the same way, where the relative sector performance went against our active allocation. In Chart 3, we show the "winners" and "losers" for our U.S., Euro Area and U.K. sector allocations since late January. Our success rate was quite good, as we had far more winners than losers in all three regions. The Big Picture For Corporate Credit: Favorable Business Cycle, But Valuations Are Not Cheap We have been maintaining an overall overweight allocation to IG corporates since late January. This was based on a view that global economic activity was accelerating, which would support faster profit growth. This would provide cyclical relief for stressed corporate balance sheets in the U.S. Euro Area & U.K. corporates would also benefit from a better profit backdrop, with the added bonus of central bank asset purchases helping to improve the supply/demand balance for IG debt. Yet spreads have already tightened substantially throughout the IG universe. This reflects declining macro volatility and the ongoing investor stretch for yield after the rise in global government bond yields earlier this year faded significantly. The result is that there is now far less dispersion among corporate sectors, by industry or by credit quality, then we've seen in recent years (Charts 4, 5 & 6). Coming at a time of high corporate leverage, and with central bank liquidity growth starting to roll over as we discussed in last week's Weekly Report, we are recommending an "up in quality" bias to sector allocations and credit exposure, while favoring U.S. and U.K. corporates over Euro Area equivalents.2 Chart 4Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.S. Chart 5Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The Euro Area Chart 6Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.K. Bottom Line: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, while keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, But Be Selective In Tables 1A and 1B, we present the results of our U.S. IG sector valuation model as of May 31st.3 We are maintaining an overweight recommendation on U.S. IG in our overall model portfolio, as we continue to see the backdrop for U.S. economic growth being much friendlier for corporate debt versus Treasuries. Credit spreads are very tight, however, so we are maintaining some degree of caution in our sector recommendations. Specifically, we are aiming to favor industries with option-adjusted spread (OAS) at or above that of the overall U.S. IG index, but with a positive valuation from our U.S. IG relative value model. We also wish to keep the aggregate level of spread risk, using our preferred "duration times spread" (DTS) metric, in line with that of the overall U.S. IG index. As can be seen in the scatter diagram in Chart 7, which plots the model valuations versus the DTS score for each sector, there are precious few non-financial sectors that offer attractive spreads that are not riskier than the overall index. Our model has shown some improvement in value within the sub-sectors of the Energy space, which is a consequence of the softness in oil prices over the past few months. With our commodity strategists calling for a recovery in oil prices back up towards to $55-60 range by year-end, we see this an opportunity to raise our allocations to Energy by upgrading the Independent and Integrated sub-sectors to overweight from neutral. At the same time, we are reducing the size of our prior overweights in Refining and Midstream to keep the overall Energy sector allocation to no more than two times that of the U.S. IG Energy index - a pure risk management move on our part. We are also upgrading some of our prior underweights in the Communications sectors to neutral (Media & Entertainment, Wirelines & Wireless) and to overweight (Cable & Satellite), given relatively attractive valuations in those areas. By the same token, we are cutting Other Industrials to underweight from neutral with valuations now looking unattractive. All of our U.S. sector changes result in an upgrade of our weighting to the broad Industrials grouping by 5 percentage points to 58.6%. We are reducing our large overweight to U.S. Banks by an equivalent amount to "fund" this new allocation within our 100% invested model IG portfolio. The net result of all these changes is that our U.S. IG portfolio has an overall DTS score of around 9, in line with that of the U.S. IG benchmark index. Thus, we are not making any changes to our aggregate recommended spread risk, in line with our top-down views on the overall level of credit spreads and curves, as described earlier. Bottom Line: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro Area Investment Grade: Not Much Value Left, Remain Underweight In Tables 2A and 2B, we show the output from our Euro Area IG sector valuation model. The scatter diagram showing the model residuals versus the individual sector DTS scores is shown in Chart 8. Finding value has become a problem in Europe, with only a few sectors (most notably, Metals & Mining, Oil Field Services, Life Insurance and P&C Insurance) showing a double-digit spread residual from our model. All those sectors also offer wider spreads than the overall Euro Area IG index, but the Insurers stand out as being much riskier from a DTS perspective. That is a function of the wide spread for the overall Insurance sector, which is nearly double that of the overall Euro Area IG index. We see no reason to change our existing allocations to those sectors in our model portfolio, keeping Metals & Mining and Oil Field Services at overweight and the Insurers at neutral (a prudent tradeoff between wide spreads and high risk). It would likely take a meaningful rise in European interest rates before any serious compression in Insurance spreads could unfold, given the struggles that industry faces from low yields on its fixed income investment assets. A rise in European bond yields could unfold later this year if the European Central Bank (ECB) signals that a tapering of its asset purchase program will begin next year. We see that scenario as increasingly likely, given the overall strength of the Euro Area recovery. The ECB will only shift its stance gradually, due to the lack of immediate inflation concerns. Any signal that that fewer bond purchases are in the offing, however, will pose a major risk for European corporates given the large ECB buying of that debt over the past year. We see very few necessary changes to our Euro Area allocations at the moment, as our overall portfolio DTS is in line with the IG benchmark index (around 6). We do recommend cutting Cable & Satellite and Utilities (Electric & Natural Gas) to underweight. Bottom Line: With corporate spreads at tight levels, and with few sectors showing compelling value, we are comfortable in remaining underweight Euro Area corporates, while keeping spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities to underweight. U.K. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, Focusing On Financials In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our update U.K. IG sector model, with the scatterplot of model residuals versus DTS scores shown in Chart 9. Not much has changed in terms of which sectors appear cheap in our model versus the late January levels. Financials, in general, have the cheapest spreads on an absolute basis, especially the Insurers. Although the cheap valuation on the Insurance debt mirrors the same problem highlighted above for the Euro Area insurers - interest rates that are too low to generate acceptable investment returns on the insurers' portfolios. We are maintaining our overall modest overweight allocation to U.K. IG, while keeping overall spread risk close to index levels. While the political and security risks within the U.K. are significant at the moment, there is no threat of the Bank of England moving to a less accommodative monetary policy anytime soon. A backdrop of churning economic growth, an undervalued British Pound and a central bank maintaining hyper-easy monetary policy is still a decent one for U.K. corporate debt. In terms of sector allocation changes based on our U.K. IG sector valuation model, we recommend upgrading Health Care and REITs to overweight, downgrading Other Industrials to neutral and cutting Tobacco to underweight. Bottom Line: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors To Our Model Portfolio Framework", dated January 24 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our valuation framework assesses the attractiveness of each IG sector within a cross-sectional analysis. The OAS for each sector is regressed against common risk factors (interest rate duration, credit quality) with the residual spread determining the valuation of each sector. Appendix

Highlights Will Trump's trade rhetoric damage the U.S. service sector's abilities to generate a trade surplus and create high-paying jobs? Our assessment of the latest Beige Book via the BCA Beige Book Monitor supports the Fed's view that Q1 weakness was an anomaly and inflation is headed higher. This will keep the Fed on track to tighten in June and again later this year. GDP growth in 2017 is poised to exceed the Fed's forecast for the first time in seven years if the recent pattern of 2H GDP beating 1H GDP growth is repeated. Global oil inventories are set to move lower and drive oil prices higher. The odds of a recession remain low even with the economy at full employment. Feature The May employment report fell short of expectations, but the average gain of 121,000 jobs per month over the past 3 months and the drop in the unemployment rate are still enough to tighten the labor market and keep the Fed on track to tighten later this month. The unemployment rate dipped to 4.3% in May and is now 0.4% below the Fed's view of full employment. Wage growth remains stagnant despite the state of health of the labor market, as year-over-year average hourly earnings growth remained at just 2.5% in May (Chart 1). Chart 1Labor Market Still Tightening##BR##Despite Disappointing May Taking a broader view, the job picture in the service sector remains robust and wages in the export-oriented service industries remain well above wages in the goods sector. In this week's report we examine the impact of trade on the labor market and highlight areas where Trump's rhetoric may hurt trade-related job growth. Trump At Your Service The large trade surplus in the U.S. service sector is a hidden source of strength for the economy and labor market. Trump campaigned on his ability to create high paying manufacturing jobs, but his America First rhetoric is threatening jobs in the high paying service sector. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. has imported more than it has exported, acting as a drag on GDP growth. The trade gap reflects a large and persistent goods deficit, which more than offsets a growing trade surplus on the service side. U.S. imported goods exceeded exports by $1.3 trillion in 2016. Service exports totaled an all-time high of $778 billion in 2016, $270 billion more than imports. Exports of services have increased by 7% per year on average since 2000, which is nearly twice as fast as nominal GDP (Charts 2A & 2B). Chart 2AThe U.S. Runs Trade##BR##Surplus In Services... Chart 2B...But It's Not Large Enough To Offset##BR##The Big Trade Deficit In Goods The trade surplus in services added 0.07% to GDP in Q1 2017, 0.04% in 2016, and has consistently added to GDP growth over the past few decades, although it is swamped by the large drag on GDP as a result of the trade deficit on goods. Industries where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus have experienced job growth that is more than seven times faster than in industries where the U.S. runs a deficit. In addition, median wages ($29 as of April 2017) among surplus-producing industries are more than 20% higher than in industries in the goods sector ($24) where there is a trade deficit, even though wages are rising quicker in the goods-producing sector in the past year (Chart 3). U.S. service sector exports tend to compete on quality (not on price) and, therefore, will not be as affected as U.S. goods exports if the dollar meets BCA's forecast of a 10% rise in the next 6-12 months (Chart 4). Chart 3Wages In Export Led Service Industries##BR##20% Higher Than In Goods Sector Chart 4Service Sector Export Orders##BR##At New High Despite Strong Dollar However, Trump's trade policies may threaten to reduce the U.S.'s global dominance in services. The U.S. has the largest trade surpluses in travel (which includes education), intellectual property, financial services, and legal, accounting and consulting services (Table 1). The U.S. also runs a large surplus in areas such as intellectual property, software and advertising. In 2015, foreigners spent $92 billion more to travel to, vacation in and be educated in America compared with what U.S. residents spent for those services overseas. Anecdotal reports note that travel to the U.S. is down by as much as 15% since the start of the year, and that 40% of U.S. colleges and universities have seen a decline in foreign applications, putting the nearly $100 billion trade surplus at risk. Other Trump policies, such as the proposed travel ban and some of his "America First" campaign-style rhetoric, could jeopardize the trade surpluses in financial services ($77 billion), software services ($30 billion), TV and film right ($13 billion), architectural services ($10 billion) and advertising ($8) billion. Table 1Key Components Of U.S. Trade Surplus In Services Trump's trade rhetoric potentially threatens U.S. service exports to NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico), the Eurozone and the emerging markets. President Trump campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA, supporting Brexit and pulling the U.S. out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trade in services are key to all of those treaties, although trade in goods gets more attention. At $56 billion in 2015, Canada is the U.S.'s second largest service export market, and Mexico is a top 10 destination ($31 billion). Forty percent of U.S. service exports go to Europe, and at $66 billion in 2015, the U.K. is the single largest market for U.S. service exports. The U.S. sends half of its service exports to EM nations, with markets in Asia accounting for just under 30% of all U.S. service exports. Thus investors should carefully monitor the progress of all three of these trade deals to help better assess the impact on U.S. trade and jobs in the service sector. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s large trade surplus in services fosters faster job creation and better pay than in the goods-producing area where the U.S. has a trade deficit. The Trump administration's rhetoric and actions on trade and globalism potentially risks America's dominance in the service sector. In theory, U.S. trade restrictions could add to U.S. GDP growth as long as there is no retaliation from its trading partners (which is unlikely). But any gains on the manufacturing trade front could be largely offset by damage to the U.S. surplus in services trade. Beige Book Backs The Fed For the Fed, policymakers are treating any potential changes to trade and fiscal policy as risks to their outlook. At the moment, they are judging the need for tighter policy based on the evolution of the labor market and inflation. The Beige Book released on May 31 confirmed the FOMC's base-case outlook. It keeps the Fed on track to tighten in June and then again later this year as it begins to trim its balance sheet. Our quantitative assessment of the qualitative Beige Book that we introduced in April 17 found that the economy had rebounded from a weak Q1 and that inflation was in an uptrend despite recent soft readings.1 The dollar seems to have faded as a key concern for small businesses and bankers. Business uncertainty around government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that commercial and residential real estate, the former a surprise source of strength in Q1 GDP, remains stout more than halfway through Q2. Chart 5 shows that the BCA Beige Book Monitor ticked up to 71% in May 2017 from 64% in April. The metric is in line with its cycle highs recorded in mid-2014 as oil prices peaked. "Inflation" words in the Beige Book hit a new peak in May and are in sharp contrast to the recent soft readings on CPI and the PCE deflator. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may be turning up soon. Chart 5May Beige Book Points To Solid Growth In Q2 In Chart 5, panel 4 we track mentions of "strong dollar" in the report. The May Beige Book saw the same number of references to a strong dollar as the May 2016 report. This suggests that the dollar is not as big a concern for business owners as it was from early 2015 through early 2016. Housing added 0.5 percentage points to growth in Q1, and business spending on structures added 0.7 percentage points. The latest Beige Book suggests that both sectors remain robust here in Q2 (Chart not shown). The implication is that the U.S. economy is poised to clear the low hurdle in 2017 set for it by the FOMC in late 2016. The Fed's economic growth target for 2017 (set at the December 2016 FOMC meeting) was just 2.1%, the lowest year ahead forecast since 2009. The projection incorporates the Fed's lowered trajectory for potential output, but may also reflect the fact that actual GDP growth has not exceeded the Fed's forecast every year since 2009 (Chart 6). GDP growth in 1H 2017 is tracking between 2% and 2.5% despite the weak start to the year. In late May, Q1 GDP growth was revised to +1.2% from the 0.7% reading reported in late April. Based on the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now, the NY Fed's Nowcast and readings on ISM, vehicle sales and the Beige Book, GDP in Q2 is tracking to near 3%. If the economy rebounds from the lackluster first quarter as we expect, then real output will be on course to match or exceed the Fed's forecast for the first time since the recession. We expect an acceleration for fundamental reasons and due to poor seasonal adjustment. In 5 of the past 7 years, real GDP growth in Q3 and Q4 was the same or stronger than the pace of expansion in the first half of the year (Table 2). During that period, 2H output growth averaged 2.4%, while 1H growth was an anemic 1.8%. In the years when Q1 GDP was weak,2 as it was this year, real economic output in the second half of the year accelerated from 1H growth nearly every time. Table 2GDP Growth In 2H Has Met Or Exceeded 1H Growth In 5 Of Past 7 Years Bottom Line: The latest Beige Book (prepared for the June 13-14 FOMC meeting) confirms policymakers' assessment that the weak growth in Q1 was transitory and inflation is in an uptrend. The economy remains on target to hit or exceed the Fed's growth objectives. The FOMC is poised to raise rates in June and one more time by year end. This view is not discounted in the bond market, implying that Treasury yields are too low. Equity prices could be undermined by higher yields and the dollar, but this will be offset by rising growth (and profit) expectations if our base-case view pans out. Oil Prices: Fade The Recent Weakness A pickup in U.S. growth will also be positive for oil prices, although it is OPEC's efforts to curtail excess inventories that is the main driver of our bullish view. Our commodity strategists believe that OPEC 2.0's recent production cut extension will be successful in bringing OECD inventories down to normalized levels, even assuming some compliance fatigue (cheating).3 Shale production is bouncing back quickly. OPEC's November 2016 agreement signaled to the world that OPEC (and Russia) would abandon Saudi Arabia's professed commitment to a market share war, and would instead work together to support a ~$50/bbl floor under the price of oil. Such a price floor dramatically reduced the investment risk for shale drilling, and emboldened producers to pour money into vastly increased drilling programs. Nonetheless, global oil demand continues to grow robustly. Moreover, production is eroding for oil producers outside of (Middle East) OPEC, Russia and U.S. Shale, which collectively supply half the market. The cumulative effects of spending constraints during 2015-18 will result in falling output in the coming years for this group of producers. Adding it all up, we expect demand to exceed supply for the remainder of 2017, which will result in a significant drawdown in oil inventories (Chart 7). Our strategists think the inventory adjustment will push the price of oil up to US$60 by year end. They expect a trading range of US$45-65 to hold between now and 2020. Chart 8 shows a simple model for oil prices, based on global industrial production, oil production, OECD oil inventories and oil consumption in the major countries and China. If OPEC is successful in reducing inventories to their 5-year moving average, the model implies that oil prices will surge by more than US$10! The coefficient on oil inventories in the model is probably overly influenced by the one major swing in inventories we have seen in the last couple of decades, suggesting that we must take the results with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, our point is that oil prices have significant upside potential if the excessive inventory problem is solved. Chart 7Significant Drawdown##BR##In Inventories Is Coming Chart 8Upside Potential For Oil##BR##If Inventory Issue Is Resolved Bottom Line: The extension of OPEC 2.0 production cuts reinforces our bullish view for oil prices. Revisiting The Odds Of A Recession It seems odd at first glance to be discussing recession risks at a time when growth is poised to accelerate. Nonetheless, BCA's Global Investment Strategy service recently noted that investors should be on watch for recession now that the economy has reached full employment.4 Historically, once the unemployment rate reached estimates of full employment, the odds of a recession in the subsequent 12 months increased four-fold. In last week's report, we maintained that the lack of progress on fiscal policy by the Trump administration may actually be positive for risk assets in the medium term because it would stretch out the cycle and thus lower recession risks.5 The economic data have disappointed so far this year, as highlighted by the economic surprise index (Chart 9). Despite this, there is not much talk of recession in the news media and various models also show slim chances of recession this year (Chart 10). Only one of eight components in our BCA model is flashing recession: the three-year moving average of the Fed funds rate is rising because the Fed rate hike cycle began in late 2015. Chart 9Economic Data Still Disappointing, But Does Not Signal A Recession Chart 10Odds Of A Recession This Year Remain Low In a prior report we dismissed the rollover in commodity prices as a recessionary signal and noted that Trump's political woes would only slow the GOP's legislative agenda. Nonetheless, even without fiscal stimulus, the U.S. economy will still grow above its long-term potential, tighten the labor market and push up wages and inflation in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: The odds of recession remain low despite the U.S. economy being at full employment. The delay in Trumponomics' will prolong the expansion and will support risk assets over the next 6-12 months. 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 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Inflation And The Fed", dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories", dated June 1, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight", dated May 26, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Corporate Earnings Versus Trump Turbulence", dated May 29, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Dear clients, Instead of our usual Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Marko Papic and Matt Gertken with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Marko and Matt argue that impeachment is a political, not legal, process in the U.S. political system. If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump will almost certainly be impeached. Otherwise, it would require “smoking gun” evidence of criminal behavior to turn House Republicans against the president. For now, financial markets will largely ignore impeachment risks and focus on tax cuts. Midterm elections will accelerate their tax-cutting attempts. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Highlights Impeachment is a political, not legal, process; The House of Representatives decides what is impeachable; The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner; Democrats will impeach Trump if they take the House in 2018; Republicans will not impeach, unless there is a "smoking gun." Markets will look through impeachment risks to tax cuts, for now. Feature "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." - Representative Gerald Ford, April 15, 1970 Chart 1Trump's Support Abysmal Since the election of President Donald Trump we have been inundated with client questions regarding the probability of impeachment. We have hesitated to put our thoughts on paper due to the fact that the House of Representatives plays a crucial role in impeachment proceedings and that the Republican Party enjoys a comfortable 21-seat majority in that legislative chamber. Since the election, however, President Trump has continued to confound supporters and critics alike with controversial moves. His firing of FBI Director James Comey, reportedly without consulting any of his political advisors, is the latest in a string of unorthodox decisions. Leaks and accusations are swirling in the aftermath. In addition, his overall approval numbers continue to languish at historically abysmal levels for the start of a presidency (Chart 1), which portends a tough midterm election for the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (Chart 2). The American political context remains as polarized as ever, with the quantitative measure of ideological polarization at a record high (Chart 3).1 This dataset treats the North-South division of the Civil War differently from ideological polarization; the current level of ideological polarization is the highest since the post-Civil War period. In this environment, we suspect that, were the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Representatives, the probability of impeachment would be very high. Trump would have to hope that Republican Senators have his back, which at that point is by no means a foregone conclusion.2 Chart 2Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Chart 3Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure We will not get into the "merits" of a case against President Trump. It suffices to repeat Gerald Ford's quip from the top of this report: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be." Given the vitriol and polarization of American politics at the moment, we therefore suspect that impeachment will almost certainly occur if the House falls to the Democrats. Otherwise, for the Republicans to impeach one of their own, even one as loosely allied with the GOP as Trump, would require "smoking gun" evidence of the president's direct hand in a grave scandal. A Guide To Impeaching The President Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This is a low bar for impeachment, not a high bar. "Misdemeanors" is a slippery term and the House of Representatives determines what it means. There is no appeals process and no interjection by the Supreme Court. The most important point about the U.S. impeachment process is that the "House decides." Decides what? Everything. Hence impeachment proceedings can be started by the House for whatever crime the legislative body deems worthy of impeachment proceedings. Once the House approves the "articles of impeachment," the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Historically the first presidential impeachment was that of President Andrew Johnson, who assumed the presidency following the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Republican President Lincoln on a National Union ticket. Johnson was impeached on the grounds that he violated the Tenure of Office Act (which is no longer applicable) by firing his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. But the real political backdrop to the proceeding was that Johnson, a Southern Democrat, favored quick restoration of state rights to the rebellious South and was firing members of the Lincoln cabinet whom he deemed too abolitionist. Johnson was ultimately acquitted in the Senate by just one vote. President Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached, with the GOP-held House of Representatives largely voting along party lines on the two articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to get the 67 votes required for conviction, with Republican Senators from the Northeast (Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont) and Pennsylvania siding with the Democrats. Both the Johnson and Clinton impeachment were more about the deeply polarized environment in Washington and the country at large than about actual crimes. Only the impeachment proceedings initiated against President Nixon provide a clear example of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, President Nixon was never actually impeached as he resigned before the House of Representatives could consider the articles of impeachment against him. He had been warned he would not survive, given the "smoking gun" evidence of his direct personal involvement in the Watergate break-in scandal, and he did not want to be the first president to be removed from office. Thus, as far as a U.S. president is concerned, the House of Representatives is the accuser and the Senate is the judge, jury, and the executioner. Because the bar for adopting impeachment articles in the House is so low (simple majority), we are almost certain that a Democratic-held House would find a reason to impeach President Trump. Whether the Senate then removes President Trump would depend on the severity of his alleged crimes, which we have no way to assess at this point in time. One crucial point to note - particularly in the case of President Trump - is that the House of Representatives can vote on articles of impeachment that deal with alleged crimes committed prior to coming to the office. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the House decides and there is no appeals process.3 Therefore, if the House decides that the president can be impeached for alleged crimes and misdemeanors committed before or outside of his office, then he can. Bottom Line: Impeachment is an intrinsically political process. As such, the legal merits of the accusations matter less than the political context in which the House considers impeaching the president. Given the historically high level of political polarization in the U.S., the extremely low levels of Trump's popularity, and his unorthodox policymaking process, we expect that there is a high probability that a Democratic-held House would impeach President Trump on some grounds. Whether President Trump would then be removed from office would depend on whether the accusations of the House of Representatives have sufficient merit - both in terms of the weight of the crimes and the political interests - for Senate Republicans to abandon the president. A Guide To A Constitutional Coup D'état Intriguingly, the U.S. Constitution provides for a procedure by which the president can be removed from office even without an impeachment process.4 The 25th Amendment, passed following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gives the Vice President and the Cabinet the authority to remove the president from power. Section 4 of Article 25 states: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. If the above paragraph sounds like a constitutional coup d'état, that is because it is one. If the president challenges the argument that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the issue goes before Congress, where it would require two-thirds of each legislative body to vote to remove the president. As such, the 25th Amendment has a higher hurdle than the impeachment process in Congress, but it could be a quicker way to remove a sitting president who is incapacitated for health reasons, becomes mentally unstable, or broadly-speaking loses touch with reality.5 Chart 4GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump In the case of President Trump, this process would require a complete loss of confidence in his leadership by Vice President Pence, the Cabinet, and Republican members of Congress. Given Trump's high level of support with Republican voters (Chart 4), we are nowhere close to the risk of the 25th Amendment being invoked. However, if Trump's popularity declines precipitously, his own Cabinet has the ability to eject him from the Oval Office without any accusation of legal misconduct. Presumably Trump would have taken concrete action that proved plainly detrimental to the national interest in order to set this process in motion - at which point any number of earlier erratic behaviors or statements could come into play against him. Bottom Line: Impeachment is not the only process by which a sitting U.S. president can be removed from office. Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 4, offers a constitutional coup d'état process that avoids the messiness of a Senate trial. However, the legislative hurdle for this procedure is even higher than the impeachment process. As such, it would require Donald Trump to completely lose the faith of Republican voters and legislators. Signposts To Impeachment We do not intend to prosecute claims against President Trump in this or any future report. First, we are not legal experts. Second, we do not have access to full information. Third, as we pointed out above, the impeachment process is a highly political process. As such, key triggers are political, and only minimally criminal. First, either Democrats win the House of Representatives, or GOP voters turn against President Trump in large numbers. As such, investors should keep close attention to Chart 4 data, at least until the midterm elections. Second, President Trump has to lose the confidence of Republican legislators, particularly in the Senate. Nonetheless, there are several other, more specific, issues we will watch carefully. Special investigation: In both Nixon's and Clinton's scandals, a special committee investigated executive wrongdoing. In Nixon's case this was the Senate Watergate Committee; in Clinton's case it was the special investigation led by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr's investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Why it matters today? The precedent of special investigations and committees is strong in American politics. It will be difficult for President Trump to deny the public a special investigation of his campaign team's dealing with Russian officials. The Clinton example illustrates the danger of such investigations: what began as an investigation into a suspicious real estate deal concluded with perjury accusations on a completely unrelated matter. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. Subpoenas: Congressional committees investigating impropriety can subpoena individuals or physical evidence to appear before the committee. Such subpoenas can reveal potential crimes and misconduct only tangentially related to the original investigation. The Watergate Tapes were critical to the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The White House challenged their subpoena, but the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Nixon, July 1974, that executive privilege did not allow President Nixon to deny the release of the tapes. Why it matters today? Currently, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and has issued a subpoena to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for documents regarding his interactions with Russian officials. President Trump will not be able to claim ignorance if sufficient members of his inner circle are found to have colluded with a foreign power. It didn't work for President Nixon. Furthermore, it should worry President Trump that three Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are either former GOP primary opponents (Marco Rubio of Florida) or vocal critics (Susan Collins of Maine and Tom Cotton of Arkansas). Law enforcement: The President, as the head of the executive and as the attorney general's direct superior, is in charge of all U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. He therefore has the constitutional prerogative of summarily firing various members of the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies. However, this does not mean that those same agencies will stay loyal and not collude with the opposition or the press to undermine the president's authority. In the Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the FBI, Mark Felt, was the "Deep Throat" source that fed Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein the information that ultimately led to President Nixon to resign. Felt's actions were by no means selfless. Why it matters today? President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey under unorthodox circumstances. While the official reason is that Comey mishandled the investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton's email scandal, sources close to Comey (read: Comey) argue that it was because the FBI Director wanted to expand the agency's investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump also seems to have feared that Comey was after him personally. Given the penchant of U.S. intelligence agencies to leak embarrassing information on members of Trump's inner circle - e.g. the transcript of Flynn's conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak - we assume that members of the FBI who remain loyal to Comey could leak further information. In other words, President Trump has from the beginning of his presidency made powerful enemies in U.S. law enforcement agencies. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing on any front, we suspect that it will leak. Bottom Line: Once congressional committees begin investigating, subpoenaing documents and witnesses, there is no telling where or how the process ends. What begins as an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election can end up somewhere completely different. Given that the Senate Intelligence Committee is already holding investigations and that President Trump has made powerful enemies in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community, we have to accept that there is a high probability that the investigations into impropriety expand. Whether they expand to the point of causing the impeachment preconditions listed above is anyone's guess at this point. Investment Implications Of Impeachment Given the small number of cases, it is difficult to rely on historical precedents to make broader conclusions on how the market would react to impeachment or severe political scandal in the White House. Chart 5 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, Teapot Dome did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.6 Chart 5AEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 5BVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like Teapot Dome, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, but rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA's own Tony Boeckh remarked that a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to a short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere: Particularly in recent weeks, the Watergate affair has had an effect on the market much like a slow presidential assassination might... The Watergate affair, while primarily of psychological importance in the short run, clearly has had the effect of sustaining the weakness in the dollar and adding greatly to an already deeply negative psychology. If one can see these basic factors as temporary, then the whipsaw possibilities are obvious.7 Tony's analysis ultimately proved prescient, with stocks rallying briskly from Nixon's resignation in August 1974 and throughout 1975. What would happen this time around? If scandals surrounding Russian interference in the election grow over the next several months, the market may begin to price in a loss of the House in November 2018, which would obviously stall Trump's populist, "pump-priming" agenda. We think that the market could fret if the scandals worsen for three main reasons: Legislative agenda - An embattled White House would be a distracted White House. It is difficult to see how the White House could provide leadership on health and tax reform. The seriousness of the alleged crimes - President Clinton was impeached for having an extra-marital workplace affair and lying about it. If the Russian electoral interference charges stick, the Trump administration would be essentially accused of treason. The White House lashes out - An embattled President Trump could shift gears from domestic to foreign policy, as he faces few constitutional constraints on the latter. President Clinton faced off against Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic mid-way through the impeachment process, finally ordering NATO air strikes on the heels of his acquittal by the Senate. President Trump could shift his focus on North Korea, Iran, or "unfair" trading partners. Despite good reasons to worry that impeachment will become a possibility after the midterm elections, we think the market will continue to focus on the prospects for tax reform. And on that front, it is highly unlikely that a growing scandal in the Trump administration would matter. Provided, of course, that there is not some material evidence that accelerates the crisis and forces even a GOP-controlled House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reform. We would therefore largely look through the risks of impeachment - as our predecessors at BCA did amidst the Watergate scandal - at least until the months before November 6, 2018 (midterm election date). In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the Vice President. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst case scenario for investors in case of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Mike Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Given the market's focus on tax reforms, it is difficult to see why this tail-risk would have to be priced in over the next 12 months. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 56 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Given that they plan to use a FY2018 budget reconciliation bill to pass tax reform, it means that passage by April or May of 2018 is highly likely. Then they can campaign all summer on how they kept their promises to give tax relief and create jobs. Counter Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may give a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S.8 Chart 6Could Be Worse Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces ##br##Competitive House Seats As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur post-midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. The one risk we do not account for here is that a "smoking gun" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia is unearthed well before the midterm election. This could force the GOP in the House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reforms. We do not expect this to happen, but we also have no evidence to support our view. At this point, however, there is absolutely no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Do we agree that Trump's impeachment would signal the end of populism? No. As our colleague Peter Berezin has repeatedly said - and our clients ought to listen given that he correctly predicted Trump's victory in September 20159 - American voters voted for "Trumpism," not Trump. As Peter recently pointed out, "either Trump will start delivering on the promises that endeared him to blue-collar workers in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, or he will go down in flames in the next election."10 Of course, if Trump "goes down in flames" in an impeachment scenario, Peter's point about blue-collar workers still stands. The next election, in 2020, will still feature populism, especially if the U.S. experiences a recession in the meantime and if Trump's policies do not help the median voter by that time. In that case, the election in 2020 will not feature moderates such as Pence, but rather unorthodox policymakers from both the left and the right. We intend to publish a report on populism in America over the next several weeks and elucidate our pessimistic view of politics, the economy, and the markets after 2017. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 The data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze the preference and choice of legislators based on their roll-call voting record in the U.S. Congress. According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level ever. Their research shows that the "primary dimension of polarization," the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy, explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Please see Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal, "D-Nominate After 10 Years: A Comparative Update To Congress: A Political-Economic History Of Roll-Call Voting," Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 5-29. 2 Especially when one considers that President Trump's fate may at some point in the near future be in the hands of Senators "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco." 3 Please see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the jurisdiction of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings and confirmed that no judicial appeals process exists. As a side point, the case had nothing to do with former President Richard Nixon, but rather was brought against the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon. 4 We thank our former colleague, and expert on the U.S. Constitution, Mike Marchio for pointing out this loophole. 5 The only time the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was seriously contemplated was in 1987, due to President Ronald Reagan's growing "inattentiveness" and "laziness" (probably early signs of Alzheimer disease). Incoming Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. was asked by his predecessor Donald Regan to carefully examine whether President Reagan was capable of performing his duties. President Reagan passed the test. Please see Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, "Happy 50th Birthday To The 25th Amendment To The Constitution!" dated February 10, 2017, available at huffingtonpost.com. 6 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil on federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Stock Market And Business Forecast," June 1973 - Vol. XXIV No.12 and July 1973 - Vol. XXV No. 1, copies available on request. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Establishment Strikes Back," dated April 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.