Developed Countries

Highlights This week, we are reprising and updating "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" from our sister service Energy Sector Strategy (NRG), because it so well captures the state of oil production outside the U.S. shales, Middle East OPEC and Russia. "The Other Guys" account for ~ half of global supply. Next week, we'll publish a joint report with NRG analyzing today's OPEC meeting. The aptly named "Other Guys" account for ~ 42mm b/d of production, which they are struggling to maintain at current levels, let alone increase. These producers supply nearly half of global production, and have been stuck in a pattern of slow decline for years despite high oil prices. Beginning in 2019, we expect production declines to accelerate. This will put enormous pressure on the three primary growth regions, which markets likely will start pricing in toward the end of next year. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 is expected to extend its 1.8mm b/d of production cuts to the end of 1Q18 at its meeting in Vienna today. Going into the meeting, markets were being guided to expect even deeper cuts. Our long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short $45/bbl puts, and our long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent positions are up 75.0% and 509.5% respectively, following their initiation on May 11, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Steel and iron-ore prices are getting a boost from China's anti-pollution campaign, which is expected to run through the end of this month. This was launched ahead of the anti-pollution campaign we expected after the Communist Party Congress in the fall. Iron ore delivered to Qingdao is up 3.1% since May 9, when Reuters reported the campaign began.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold was well bid earlier in the week on the back of a weaker USD. Our long gold position is up 1.9%, while our long volatility trade, which we will unwind at tonight's close, is down 98.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The weaker USD takes some pressure off wheat and beans over the short term, and might prompt a short-covering rally. We remain bearish, however, as the USD likely will bottom in the near future.2 Feature U.S. Onshore, Middle East OPEC (ME OPEC), and Russia combine to produce ~43 MMb/d of oil plus another ~11 MMb/d of other liquids (NGLs, biofuels, refinery gains, etc.). Combined, these producers increased crude production by 5 MMb/d plus another 1 MMb/d of other liquids production over the past three years (2014-2016), creating the oversupply that crashed prices. We expect these producers to add another 1.60 MMb/d of oil plus 1.14 MMb/d of other liquids by 2018 (over 2016 levels), dominated by nearly 2.0 MMb/d of oil and NGLs from the U.S. shales. Oil production from the other 100+ global oil producers also represents about ~42 MMb/d, but on balance has been slowly eroding since 2010, failing to grow even when oil prices were $100+/bbl. Despite some 2017 recovery from Libya, we expect total production to continue to fall in both 2017 and 2018. The few recently expanding producers among the Other Guys are running out of growth. Canada, Brazil, North Sea and GOM account for ~13 MMb/d of oil production in 2016, adding ~1.5 MMb/d over the past three years (2014-2016). North Sea production is projected to resume declines starting in 2017; GOM will reach it peak production sometime in 2017 or 2018, then start to ebb; large new Canadian oil sands projects will add ~310k b/d in 2017-2018, but scarce additions are scheduled beyond that; and Brazil's once-lofty growth plans have slowed to a crawl in 2016-2018. Global deepwater drilling activity and exploration spending have collapsed, lowering the reserve base, and undermining the stability of current production levels. Outside Of Just Three Regions, Oil Supply Picture Looks Worrisome Often overlooked in our discussions about world oil markets are the supply contributions of over 100 geographic regions. This collection of suppliers (which we will call the "Other Guys") is defined as all producing regions in the world other than: 1) U.S. Onshore (shales, specifically), 2) OPEC's six Middle East members, and 3) Russia. The Other Guys deliver nearly half of global production, try to maximize production every day (even OPEC nations among the Other Guys have not had production constrained by quotas), and still have endured consistent, albeit modest, production declines over the past six years. Chart 1Outside Of A Very Few Regions,##BR##Oil Production Has Struggled At the end of 1Q17, oilfield-services leader Schlumberger voiced sharp concerns regarding stability of supplies from these ignored producers, warning that aggregate capital expenditures within these regions will sustain an unprecedented third straight year of decline in 2017, with total spending only about half of 2014 levels. Chart 1 shows the divergent production histories of the three growing regions versus the rest of the world. Chart 1 also shows production of the Other Guys excluding the especially dramatic declines/volatility of Libyan production. Even though these producers benefitted from the same incentives and profitability from high oil prices as the three growing regions, as a group, they have been unable to expand production. As oil prices have plunged, drilling activity in these nations has also plummeted, raising concerns that production declines could start accelerating in the near future. Chart 2 shows that oil-directed drilling activity among the international components of the Other Guys (Chart 2 excludes GOM and highly-seasonal Alaska and Canada) has crashed by ~40%, from an average of over 800 rigs during the five-year period of 2010-2014 to under 500 rigs for the past year. Offshore drilling has collapsed even a little more sharply for these producers than overall oil-directed drilling, falling ~43% from an average of over 280 rigs to only 160 today (Chart 3, excludes GOM). Chart 2Other Guys' Drilling##BR##Has Collapsed 40% Chart 3International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%,##BR##Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production Offshore Production Declines To Accelerate Chart 4Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed As a particularly worrisome trend for the Other Guys' production stability, offshore drilling activity has collapsed in some of the most important offshore oil producing regions in the world, including the GOM, North Sea, West Africa, and Brazil (Chart 4). Considering the multi-year lag between drilling activity and the start of oil production, and the large well size and quick declines associated with offshore wells, the oil production impacts of this drilling collapse that started two years ago have not really been felt yet. When these regions get past the wave of new production from 2015-2017 project additions (projects started during 2011-2014), they will face a dearth of new projects maturing in 2018-2022 due to this collapse in drilling, with new production likely to be inadequate to offset the declines of legacy production. Brazil, the North Sea, West Africa, and GOM together account for about 12 MMb/d of oil production (Chart 5). These four offshore regions have benefitted from intense investment from 2010-2015 as shown by the surging rig counts during that period in Chart 4. This investment/drilling drove 1.1 MMb/d of oil production growth in Brazil, the GOM, and the North Sea from 2013 to 2016, without which total production from the Other Guys would have declined by 1.4 MMb/d rather than just 0.3 MMb/d. Despite strong investment, production in West Africa merely held flat outside of Nigeria during 2013-2016 while falling by 0.4 MMb/d within Nigeria (mostly in 2016 due to pipeline disruptions from saboteurs). Chart 5Offshore Production Will Stop Expanding, Then Decline Brazil offshore drilling activity over the past year is less than half of levels during 2010-2013. As a result, production growth will moderate significantly over the next few years, expanding far less (250k b/d in 2018 vs. 2016, based on our balances data) than the rapid 470,000 b/d step-up in production during 2013-2014. While Brazil still has a rich endowment of pre-salt reserves, marshalling capital and the International Oil Companies' (IOCs) focus to resurrect development activity will take years. We expect no growth during 2019-2020. The North Sea has seen production cut in half from the time of peak production in 1999 until 2013. Production declines were briefly halted and re-expanded by ~300,000 b/d during 2014-2016 due to a concerted drilling effort and brownfield maintenance program incentivized and financed by $100/bbl oil prices. Drilling has since declined 35% from average 2010-2014 levels, and production is expected to resume its downward trend in 2017-2018. Overall oil-directed offshore drilling in the GOM has been cut by over 50% from 2013-2014 levels. Based on our field-by-field analysis published in January, we estimate GOM oil production will hit a peak in a year and a half or less and then will succumb to declines due to lack of new drilling. West Africa has suffered production declines for the past several years due to both geologic challenges as well as more recent (2016-2017) political/sabotage related disruptions in Nigeria. With offshore drilling activity plummeting 70%-80%, we expect production declines will accelerate and it will take years of increased drilling to yield new production that can stem the declines. The collapse in Nigerian drilling, from 10 rigs in 2010-2013 to only 2-3 rigs over the past year, likely means that Nigerian production is incapable of returning to 2015 levels even if its recent sabotage issues are resolved. In aggregate, as shown in Chart 5, we expect production from these four offshore regions to stagnate during 2017-2018 (North Sea and West Africa decline while Brazil and GOM expand) before declining by ~0.5 MMb/d in each 2019-2020 due to the dramatic curtailment of investment during 2015-2017. SLB Talks Its Book, But Makes A Strong Point At an industry conference at the end of March, Schlumberger (again) railed against the inadequacy of the cash flow-negative U.S. shale industry to single-handedly supply enough production growth to satisfy continuing global demand growth, especially once the Other Guys start seeing more pronounced negative production effects from the sharply reduced investments over 2015-2017. "The 2017 E&P spend for this part of the global production base...is expected to be down 50% compared to 2014. At no other time in the past 50 years has our industry experienced cuts of this magnitude and this duration." - Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of SLB. SLB highlighted an analysis of depletion rates constructed with data from Energy Aspects. (The March 27 presentation can be found at www.slb.com). Annual depletion rates (annual production/proved developed reserves) in the GOM had spiked to over 20% in 2016 from a long-term level of only ~10% during 2000-2013. Similarly, depletion rates in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea also surged from ~10% to ~15% over the past three years. In both the GOM and the North Sea, oil production had recently been expanded, but proved developed reserves declined. Due to such low drilling investments during 2015-2016, producers have replaced only about half of the oil reserves that they've produced in the GOM and North Sea over the past three years (2014-2016). Eventually, this lack of investment in cultivating tomorrow's resources will catch up to the industry, and production will decline. Investors must take SLB's commentary with a grain of salt, as they could be construed as sour grapes. The immense pull of new capital spending to the U.S. shales has substantially benefitted SLB's primary competitors more than it has benefitted SLB (SLB is much more focused on international and offshore projects). Still, investors are too complacent about the stability of non-U.S. production. SLB's analysis and warnings of accelerating production declines should not be ignored. Bottom Line: Outside of the three regions of sharply growing production (U.S. onshore, ME OPEC and Russia) that investors are focused on, the other half of global production has been stagnant to declining despite high oil prices and high levels of drilling during 2010-2015. Now that drilling and capex in these regions has declined by 40%-50%, production declines should accelerate in coming years. Offshore production, especially, has not seen enough drilling to replace reserves, and is poised to decline within the next 2-3 years. The accelerating declines of the "Other Guys" will allow more room for growth from U.S. shales, ME OPEC and Russia. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President, Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see "China steel hits nine-week peak amid crackdown, lifts iron ore," published by reuters.com May 22, 2017. 2 Please see the feature article in last week's edition of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy entitled "Bloody Potomac," in which our colleague Mathieu Savary lays out the case for an imminent USD rebound. 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 U.S. fiscal stimulus will be priced back into markets; Northeast Asia is consumed with domestic politics for now; China's financial crackdown raises risks, but so far looks contained; South Korea's relief rally will lead to buyer's remorse; Japan's constitutional reforms portend more reflation. Feature The market has lost faith in U.S. fiscal stimulus. The bond market has given back all of the expectations of faster growth and higher inflation (Chart 1). Hopes of populist, budget-busting tax cuts appear to have been dashed by the Putin-gate scandal and alleged White House obstruction of justice. As a result, the DXY has fallen to pre-election levels, while the Goldman Sachs high tax-rate basket of equities has fallen to its lowest level relative to the S&P 500 since February 2016 (Chart 2). We continue to believe that tax reform, or just tax cuts, will happen this year or early next year and that the market will have to re-price fiscal stimulus and budget profligacy at some point this year.1 As such, we are not ready to close our tactical recommendations of going long the high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 (down 1.62% since April 5) or playing the 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener (down 11.4 bps since November 1). Republicans in Congress will push through tax reforms or cuts for the sake of remaining competitive in the upcoming midterm elections. And we doubt their commitment to budget discipline. That said, it is not clear that the equity market needs tax reforms to continue its upward trajectory. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% in the second quarter while the NY Fed's Nowcast is forecasting 2.3%. BCA U.S. Equity Strategy's earnings model continues to predict continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year both in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 3).2 In fact, if expectations of stimulus in the U.S. fully dissipate, the USD will take a breather - giving global stocks a boost - and the Fed will be able to take it easy on tightening U.S. rates, easing global monetary conditions. Chart 1Market No Longer##br## Believes In Trump Stimulus... Chart 2...Or Trump ##br##Tax Cuts Chart 3Corporate Profit ##br##Outlook Still Strong Perhaps far more important for global and U.S. risk assets is global growth. And the fulcrum of global growth has been China's economic performance. As the only country willing to run pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy, China has had a disproportionate impact on global growth since 2008. As such, we turn this week to the geopolitics and politics of Northeast Asia. China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go? Chinese financial policy tightening caught the market by surprise this year. The running assumption was that policy would be fully accommodative in order to ensure stability ahead of the all-important nineteenth National Party Congress in October or November.3 However, it is possible that the assumption is flawed. First, as we have pointed out in the past, China does not have a record of proactive economic stimulus ahead of party congresses (Chart 4). Second, President Xi Jinping may be far more secure in his position than is understood. Chart 4Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Mid-Term Party Congresses In China The crackdown on the financial sector in recent months suggests that Xi's administration has a greater appetite for risk ahead of the party congress than is generally believed: The administration is continuing to tamp down on the property sector. The PBoC has drained liquidity and allowed interbank rates to rise (Chart 5). The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) has launched inspections and new regulations on wealth management products and the shadow lending sector. The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) has imposed new restrictions, including preventing insurers from selling new policies. One can make a good case that these measures will be limited so as not to cause excessive disruption in the financial system. All of the key Communist Party statements, from Premier Li Keqiang's recent comments to those made by the economic leadership in December, at the beginning of this tightening cycle, have emphasized that stability remains the priority.4 The PBoC's measures have been marginal; other measures have mostly to do with supervision. Notable personnel changes affecting the top economic and financial government positions fall under preparations for the party congress and do not necessarily suggest a new ambitious policy initiative is under way.5 Moreover, the government has already stepped back a bit in the face of the liquidity squeeze. One of the signs of the PBoC's tighter stance was its discontinuation of its Medium-Term Lending Facility in January, but this has since been reinstated.6 And throughout May the PBoC has injected increasing amounts of liquidity into the interbank system, marking an apparent tactical shift (Chart 6). Furthermore, government spending is already growing again after a brief contraction. Chart 5People's Bank Tightens Marginally... Chart 6...But Keeps Interbank Rates On A Leash In light of these decisions, it seems policy tightening is intended not to be stringent but merely to keep the financial sector - especially the shadow banking sector - in check during a year in which the assumption is that regulators' hands are tied. After all, an unchecked expansion of leverage throughout the year could interfere with the stability imperative. There are two major risks to this view. First, there is the danger of unintended consequences: China is overleveraged: The fundamental problem for China is that there is too much leverage in the system and there has not been a bout of deleveraging for several years (Chart 7). Much of the leverage is off-balance sheet as a result of the rapid growth in shadow lending. There are complex and opaque webs of counterparty risk. When authorities crack down, they cannot be certain that their actions will not spiral out of control. Recently, heightened scrutiny of "mutual guarantees," a type of shadow lending between corporations, led to the default of a company in Shandong that prompted a local government bailout, and more such credit events have occured.7 Policymakers are human: It is a fallacy to assume that Chinese policymakers are omnipotent. The mishaps of 2015-16 put a point on this. A state-backed newspaper has recently reiterated that its "deleveraging" campaign is not finished - the government could accidentally push too far.8 The rise in bond yields has already inverted the yield curve, causing the five-year bond yield to rise higher than the ten-year (Chart 8). This is a red flag and warrants caution.9 Quick fixes have negative side-effects: China escaped the last round of financial jitters, in 2015-16, by using its time-tried technique of credit and fiscal spending to boost the property market and build infrastructure, while imposing draconian capital controls. The growth rebound came at the expense of more debt, less economic rebalancing, and less financial openness. Chart 7China Is Massively Overleveraged Chart 8China's Yield Curve Has Inverted Second, there is the risk that Xi Jinping's calculus ahead of the party congress is not knowable. It may well be the case that Xi's position in the party is strengthened by a disruptive financial crackdown. The party congress is already under way: The party congress runs all year; it is not merely a one-off event this fall. Senior party officials will come up with a list of candidates for promotion in June or July. Then the PSC and former PSC members will likely meet behind the scenes to hash out their final list, which the Central Committee will ratify in the fall. If financial jitters were supposed to be strictly avoided for the party congress, then the current crackdown would never have begun. The outcomes are uncertain: The negotiations for the Politburo and PSC are not a foregone conclusion no matter how well positioned Xi appears to be as the "core" of the Communist Party. A simple assessment of the current Politburo suggests that the factions are evenly balanced when it comes to the current Politburo members capable of filling the five positions on the new PSC. Two of these positions should go to President Xi's and Premier Li Keqiang's successors, likely to be of opposing factions, while there will probably be three remaining slots that will have to be divvied up among an equal number of candidates from the two main factions (Table 1). Xi may still need to win some battles for influence behind the scenes in order to stack the Central Committee, Politburo, and PSC with his people for 2017 and beyond.10 His anti-corruption campaign has slowed down but is not over (Chart 9). This is all the more imperative for him since his retirement could be rattled by future enemies, given that he has removed the longstanding impunity of former PSC members. Table 1Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced Despite these risks, we still tend to think that for China, as for the world, political risks are overstated in 2017 and understated in 2018.11 If Xi deliberately courts instability this year, as opposed to merely staying vigilant over the financial sector, then it will mark a major break from the norms of Chinese politics. The true risk to China's stability - aside from the unintended consequences discussed above - arises after the party congress, when Xi's political capital is replenished and he can attempt to reboot his policy agenda. Previous presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both launched reform pushes after their midterm congresses in 2007 and 1997, respectively. Hu's reform drive was cut short by the global financial crisis, while Jiang's was large-scale and disruptive and paved the way for a decade of higher potential GDP. Having consolidated power in the party, bureaucracy, and military, and tightened controls over the media, Xi Jinping will be in a position in 2018 to launch sweeping reforms should he choose to do so. Presumably these reforms would follow along the lines of those he outlined in the Third Plenum of the Eighteenth Central Committee back in 2013 - they would be pro-market reforms focused on raising productivity by transferring more wealth to households and SMEs at the expense of state-owned enterprises and local governments.12 To illustrate the process of structural reform, we have often used the notion of the "J-Curve" in Diagram 1. This shows that painful reforms deplete political capital, creating a "danger zone" for political leaders in which they lose popularity as economic pain hurts the public. Xi's work over the past five years to fight corruption and rebuild the party's public image have given him the ability to start the J-Curve process from a higher point than otherwise would have been the case. He will start at point D in the diagram, instead of point A, which means that the low point E may not embroil him as deeply in the danger zone of serious political instability as point B. Chart 9Embers Still Burning In ##br##Anti-Corruption Campaign Diagram 1The J-curve Of##br## Structural Reform But there is still no guarantee that he intends to expend his political capital in this way. The current round of financial tightening could be preliminaries for bigger moves next year - or it could be just another mini-cycle in the ongoing process of "managing" China's massive leverage. If China decides to execute a major deleveraging campaign, either now or next year, it will have a negative effect on global commodity demand (particularly base metals), on commodity exporters, on emerging markets in general, and ultimately on global growth. It would be beneficial for Chinese growth in the long run but negative in the short run, and in terms of Chinese domestic risk assets would open up opportunities for investors to favor "new (innovative) China" versus "old (industrial) China." Bottom Line: We remain long Chinese equities versus Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities for now, but are wary of any sign of doubling down on policy tightening in the face of more frequent and intense credit events. That would indicate that the Chinese leadership has a higher risk appetite than anyone expects and may be willing to induce serious financial disruption before the party congress. Korea: Drunk On Moonshine The Korean election is over and with it much of the heightened uncertainty that accompanied the impeachment and removal from office of President Park Geun-hye over the past year. The new president, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party, performed right around the polled expectations at 41% of the vote (Table 2). His competitor on the right wing, Hong Jun-pyo, outperformed expectations, though he still trailed well behind at 24%, giving Moon a large margin of victory by Korean standards that will help provide him with political capital (Chart 10). Table 2South Korean Presidential Election Results Chart 10Moon Will Have A Honeymoon Moon's election will bring relief to markets on both the domestic and geopolitical front. On the domestic front, he is proposing a series of policies that will cumulatively boost fiscal thrust and growth. On the geopolitical front, he will revive the "Sunshine Policy" (now "Moonshine Policy") of engagement with North Korea, reducing the appearance that the peninsula is slipping into war.13 The power vacuum in South Korea was a key driver of North Korea's belligerence in 2016, as the lead-up to South Korean elections has been in the past (Chart 11). South Korean presidents typically enjoy a substantial honeymoon period in which they are able to drive policy. The fact that the election occurred seven months early, as a result of the impeachment, gives Moon a notable boost to this period - he has seven months longer than he would have had before he faces any potential check from voters in the 2020 legislative elections. That is not to say that Moon has free rein. Ahn Cheol-soo's People's Party holds 40 seats in the National Assembly and is therefore in a "kingmaker" position - able to provide either the ruling Democratic Party or the fractured right-wing opposition with a majority of seats (Diagram 2). The People's Party is already criticizing Moon's call for increasing government spending by around 0.7% of GDP to fulfill his campaign pledges. True, the People's Party leans to the left and rose to power as a result of the median voter's shift to the left in the 2016's legislative elections. This may limit its ability to obstruct Moon's agenda at first. Nevertheless, it poses a substantial constraint on Moon's agenda through 2020. Chart 11Bull Market For##br## North Korean Threats Diagram 2Center-Left People's Party##br## Is The Korean Kingmaker Markets are relieved but not ebullient. The impeachment rally is over and eventually markets will realize that while Moon's agenda is pro-growth, it is not necessarily pro-corporate profits (Chart 12). He is promising to introduce a higher minimum wage, to convert temporary labor contracts into permanent ones, to increase social spending, and to toughen up labor and environmental regulation (Table 3). He has also appointed the so-called "chaebol sniper" as his point man in leading the reform of the country's chaebol industrial giants. On one hand, South Korea definitely needs corporate governance reform; on the other, the process will add uncertainty and Moon's approach may not be market-positive.14 Chart 12Relief Rally Likely To Disappoint Table 3South Korean President's Campaign Proposals To get an indication of what kind of impact Moon's economic agenda may have, it is helpful to compare that of his mentor, Roh Moo-hyun, president from 2002-7. Roh gave a boost to consumption, both government and private, and saw a relative drop off in fixed capital accumulation, which fits with the broad agenda of supporting workers and households and removing privileges for Korea's traditional export-oriented industrial complex (Chart 13). Roh proved very beneficial for the financial sector, wholesale and retail trade, and health and social work. Education and public administration received some support but were flat overall (Chart 14 A & B). If Moon follows in Roh's footsteps, he will be beneficial for the domestic-oriented economy. Chart 13South Korea's Left Wing##br## Boosts Domestic Consumption Chart 14ASouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (I) Chart 14BSouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (II) Abroad, the Moonshine Policy is likely to have some success, at least in the medium term. The Trump administration is pursuing a strategy comparable to the U.S.'s nuclear negotiations with Iran from 2011-15, in which it tries to rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on the rogue state with the purpose of entering into a new round of negotiations that will actually generate concrete results. The "arc of diplomacy" will take time to get going and could last several years - it is essentially a last-ditch effort to convince North Korea to pause its nuclear and missile advances. The tail risk of conflict on the Korean peninsula will be moved out to the end of this effort, perhaps around the end of Trump's term.15 Meanwhile, Moon is already patching up trade relations with China, according to reports, after the latter imposed sanctions on Korea for deploying the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 15). He will also seek joint infrastructure projects with China and Russia to connect the peninsula. China has a vested interest in Moon's success because it is attempting to demonstrate to the Trump administration that it is cooperating on North Korean security. Chart 15China Likely To Ease##br## Sanctions On South Korea Chart 16South Korean Inflation##br## And Credit Impulse Weak The geopolitical risk to markets is, first, that North Korea miscalculates the threshold of other nations' patience, continues with provocations, and eventually causes an incident that derails the new negotiations. This is possible given the North's record of belligerent acts and the fact that both the Trump administration and the Abe administration could cut diplomacy short in the face of a truly disruptive provocation for domestic political reasons. Second, there is a risk that Trump decides to escalate North Korean tensions again, whether to distract from domestic scandals or to reinforce the military deterrent in the event that China and South Korea appear to be giving North Korea a free pass in another round of useless talks. If Moon pursues a unilateral détente with North Korea, without adequate coordination with the U.S., and pushes for the removal of THAAD missiles, then the U.S. and South Korea are headed for a period of higher-than-normal alliance tensions that could become market-relevant.16 Bottom Line: We remain short KRW/THB. Core inflation and domestic demand remain weak in Korea, which reinforces the central bank's recent decision to stick to an accommodative monetary policy. Credit growth is cyclically weak, which reinforces the fact that rate cuts are still on the table (including the possibility of a surprise rate cut like in mid-2016) (Chart 16). Finally, the KRW has been relatively strong compared to the currencies of Korea's competitors (Chart 17). Chart 17South Korean Won Has Outpaced The Yuan And Yen In terms of equities, the top six chaebol have come under scrutiny, but Samsung has rallied despite lying at the center of the corruption scandal. The others have not performed well amid the economic slowdown. We see no opportunity at present to short the chaebol in relation to the broader market. Broadly, however, Moon's policies will add burdens to large internationally competitive industrials while boosting small and medium-sized enterprises. We also remain short the Korean ten-year government bond versus the two-year (see Chart 12, panel three, above). Moon's policy bent will subtract from a 1% budget surplus (2016) and worsen the long-term trajectory of the country's relatively low public debt (39% of GDP). Insofar as his foreign policy succeeds, it entails a larger future debt burden as a result of efforts to integrate with North Korea, which is relevant to long-term bonds well before reunification appears anywhere on the horizon. At bottom, we are structurally bearish South Korea because of rising headwinds both to U.S.-China relations and to the broader globalization process that has benefited South Korea so much in the recent past. Japan: Is Militarism The Final Act Of Abenomics? Japan has reached peak political capital under Shinzo Abe. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, with its New Komeito coalition partner, continues to play in a totally different league from its competitors - there is no political alternative at the moment (Chart 18). The ruling party has a de facto two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Diet. Abe himself is more popular than any recent prime minister, and has retained that popularity over a longer period of time (Chart 19). He has secured permission from his party to stay on as its president until 2021, though he faces general elections in December 2018 to stay on as prime minister. Chart 18Japan: Liberal Democrats Still Supreme Chart 19Shinzo Abe Remains The Man Of The Hour Political capital is a fleeting thing, so Abe must use it or lose it. This is why we have insisted that he would press forward rapidly with attempts to revise Japan's constitution, his ultimate policy goal, which he has now confirmed he will do. His proposed deadline is July 2020 for the new provisions coming into force.17 Constitutional revision is not only about enshrining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) so as to normalize the country's defense policy. It is also about Japan becoming an independent nation again, capable of forging its own destiny outside of the one foreseen by the American framers of the post-WWII constitution. Though Abe has specific constitutional aims, any change to the constitution will demonstrate that change is possible and break a taboo, advancing Abe's broader goal of nudging the Japanese public toward active rather than passive policies.18 Hence Japanese politics are about to heat up in a big way. Abe has already done a trial run in his passage of a new national security law in September 2015. This law allowed the government to reinterpret the constitution so as to achieve many of his chief military-strategic aims (e.g. allowing the JSDF to come to the aid of allies in "collective self-defense"). Over the course of that year, Abe's popularity flagged, as public opinion punished him for shifting attention away from the economic reflation agenda that got him elected so as to focus on his more controversial, hawkish security agenda (Chart 20). Nevertheless, Abe stuck to the security agenda, in the face of some of the largest protests in Japan's post-Occupation history, and managed to shift back to the economy in time to notch another big victory in the upper house elections of 2016. We expect a similar process to unfold this time, though with bigger stakes and far less of a chance that Abe can "pivot" again. Under no circumstances do we see him reversing the constitutional drive now that he has the rare gift of supermajorities in the Diet; rather, he is going to spend his political capital. After all, there is no telling what could happen in the 2018 election. What are the market implications of this agenda? There may be some hiccups in consumer and business sentiment as a result of the rise in activism, political opposition, and controversy that is already beginning and will intensify as the process gets under way. Abe will be accused of putting the economy on the backburner. Abenomics is already of questionable success (Chart 21) and it will come under greater criticism as Abe shifts attention elsewhere, especially if global headwinds gain strength. Chart 20Abe Loses Support When He Talks##br## Security Instead Of Economy Chart 21Abenomics: ##br##Progress Is Gradual However, we recommend investors fade this narrative and buy Japan. Abe's constitutional changes must receive a simple majority in a nationwide popular referendum in order to pass - and Abe does not clearly have what he needs at the moment (Chart 22). This means that he cannot, in reality, afford to put Abenomics on the back burner, but instead must err on the side of monetary dovishness, fiscal stimulus, and reflation in order to win support for the non-economic agenda. There has been virtually no talk of fiscal stimulus this year, yet the policy setting is conducive to increasing spending as necessary. The Bank of Japan has explicitly embraced a monetary regime designed to allow for greater "coordination" with fiscal policy (Chart 23).19 There is no reason whatsoever to believe Abe is backing away from this stance. (Incidentally, the next consumption tax hike is not slated until October 2019, and could be delayed again.) Geopolitics are also fairly supportive of the Abe administration. First, the Korean situation is currently alarming enough to help justify the constitutional changes yet not alarming enough to provoke outright conflict. Abe is also making headway toward a historic improvement of relations with Russia, allowing Japan's military to pivot from the north to the south and west (i.e. China and North Korea). The chief risk for Abe is if North Korea surprises on the dovish side and new international diplomatic efforts appear so fruitful as to reduce domestic support for remilitarization. China, South Korea, and possibly North Korea will encourage the latter dynamic, while drumming up global criticism of Japan for warmongering. Meanwhile Japan will try to remind the domestic public and the U.S. that North Korea remains a clear and present danger and tends to take advantage of negotiations. Given the relatively positive geopolitical backdrop for Abe, the biggest risk to his agenda is an exogenous economic shock. Even then, if that shock stems from China and causes Beijing to rattle-sabers as a domestic distraction, then it will benefit Abe's remilitarization agenda. What would hurt Abe is if global growth sags but China and North Korea lay low. It is too soon to say that they will do this, but it is unlikely. Trump is also a wild card whose threats of "tough" policy toward China and North Korea may reemerge in 2018, in time to help Japan make constitutional changes that the U.S. generally supports. Bottom Line: Go long Japan. While there is no correlation between Japan's defense-exposed equity sector performance and the current government's remilitarization efforts, there is a clear case to be made that nominal GDP and defense spending will both be going up as a result of constitutional and economic policies (Chart 24). Abe will double down on reflation for at least as long as is necessary to maintain popular approval of his government ahead of a historic constitutional referendum. Chart 22Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 23Japanese Reflation ##br##Will Continue Chart 24Expect Higher Nominal##br## Growth And Defense Spending Housekeeping: Play Pound Strength Through USD, Not EUR We are closing our short EUR/GBP position, open since January 25, for a loss of 1.77%. This trade has largely been flat. We put it on as a way to articulate our view that Brexit political risks are overstated and that the pound bottomed on January 16. The political call was right, but the pound has largely moved sideways versus the euro since then. We maintain our short USD/GBP, which is up 4.63% since March 29, as a way to articulate the same view that Brexit (and the upcoming U.K. elections) are not a risk. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump Thumps The Markets," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The party congress, which occurs every five years and marks the "midterm" of President Xi Jinping's administration, will see a sweeping rotation of Communist Party officials, including on the Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). 4 Please see "China able to keep its financial markets stable, Premier Li says," Reuters, May 14, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. For the December meeting, see "China's monetary policy to be prudent, neutral in 2017," Xinhua, December 16, 2016, available at www.chinadaily.com. 5 Finance Minister Xiao Jie, Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, NDRC Chairman He Lifeng, and China Banking Regulatory Commission Chairman Guo Shuqing have all recently been appointed, but they replaced leaders due to retire as part of the party congress reshuffle. Only the new China Insurance Regulatory Commission Chairman Xiang Junbo and the new Director o f the National Bureau of Statistics Wang Baoan were replaced for reasons other than retirement, having been stung by the anti-corruption campaign. By March 2018 the world should have a better sense of Xi's economic and financial "team" for 2018-22. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Zouping government, in Shandong, intervened into the case of Qixing aluminum company's insolvency in order to transfer control to Xiwang, a corn oil and steel producer that had given a mutual guarantee to Qixing. The Zouping authorities arrested the son of Qixing's chairman to force the transfer. Please see "Bond Buyers Blacklist Some Chinese Provinces After Run Of Defaults," Bloomberg, April 26, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see "China Deleveraging To Continue As Goals Not Yet Achieved: State Paper," Reuters, May 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Signs Of An EM/China Growth Reversal," dated April 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Signal From Commodities," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Xi may yet go after another big "tiger," Zeng Qinghong, the right-hand man of former President Jiang Zemin. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated in 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Tracking The Reform Progress," dated October 22, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Moonshine Policy" is a phrase we regrettably did not coin, but we discussed its coming in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "What About Emerging Markets?" dated May 3, 2017, and "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Moon has nominated Kim Sang-jo, a professor of economics at Hansung University in Seoul, to head his Fair Trade Commission. Kim is a long-time advocate for shareholders against the family-controlled chaebol and led a prominent law suit against Samsung. Past efforts at reforming the chaebol led by Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun focused on improving balance sheets, protecting minority shareholders' rights, limiting the total amount of investment, and improving corporate management and accountability. It remains to be seen how Moon (and Kim Sang-jo, assuming his nomination is confirmed) will proceed, but the effort will bring domestic challenges to the top industrial conglomerates' operating environment at least initially. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 South Korea's special envoy Hong Seok-hyun claims that Trump told him at the White House that he will work closely with Moon and is willing to try engagement with Pyongyang, conditions permitting, though he is not interested in talks for the sake of talks. This fits with our view that the U.S. saber-rattling this year was designed to make the military option more credible before pursuing a new round of diplomacy. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, and Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 So, for instance, if it should happen that, over the course of the coming debates, Abe is forced to drop his proposed revisions to the pacifist Article 9, he may still achieve changes to the amendment-making procedure in Article 96. The latter would be even more important for Japan's future, since it would make it easier for Japan to change the constitution for whatever reason in the coming decades. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: The bond market is not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic back-drop. Remain below-benchmark duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The Fed & Inflation: Even in the most deflationary of the four scenarios we consider, inflation is still projected to be very close to the Fed's median forecast by year end. The Fed is still on track for two more rate hikes this year. The Fed's Balance Sheet: The run-down of the Fed's balance sheet will lead to a substantial increase in gross Treasury issuance next year. Most, if not all, of this extra issuance will be met by greater demand from the banking sector. Feature Chart 1Inflationary Pressures Are Building No, the title of this report does not refer to the challenge of getting a tax reform bill through Congress when betting markets say there is a 44% chance that the President won't keep his job through 2018.1 Although bond markets are clearly sending the message that progress on tax reform is less likely with the White House embroiled in controversy. The 10-year Treasury yield fell to 2.22% last week after having briefly broken above 2.4% earlier in the month (Chart 1). For the record, our Geopolitical Strategy service thinks that even a growing scandal within the Trump administration won't be enough to prevent tax cuts,2 and from our point of view, we worry that bond markets might be distracted by the political soap opera and are missing the underlying economic picture. As the nominal 10-year yield fell last week, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate also declined to 1.78%, its lowest level since prior to the election. Meanwhile, the base case scenario from our Phillips Curve model of core PCE inflation, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (Chart 1, bottom panel), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy, tax reform or no tax reform. Chart 2The Fed's 2017 Forecasts The next section of this report provides more detail on the assumptions underlying our Phillips Curve model, but suffice it to say that the bond market is not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic back-drop. Remain below-benchmark duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The remainder of this report focuses on two key challenges that U.S. policymakers will face this year. The first is the Fed's challenge of whether to focus on Phillips Curve derived forecasts of inflation or the actual core inflation data. The second challenge relates to how the Treasury department will deal with the run-off of the Fed's balance sheet. The Fed's Phillips Curve Challenge As of the March FOMC meeting, the Fed's median projection called for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and also for core PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 2). It would be logical to assume that if inflation were no longer expected to reach 1.9%, that the anticipated pace of rate hikes would also decline. On that note, a cursory glance at recent inflation data makes 1.9% look a tad aspirational. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.56% year-over-year through March, and will probably stay low in April given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April (see Box). BOX A Note On The Divergence Between CPI And PCE While weak core CPI probably does indicate that core PCE will stay low, we would not expect the entirety of April's CPI drop to translate into the PCE data. A key driver of last month's disappointing core CPI was a 0.2% month-over-month decline in medical care prices, and the treatment of medical care costs is an important difference between CPI and PCE. The weight of medical care in core PCE is more than double the 10% weighting of medical care in core CPI, because the PCE deflator also factors in the medical care spending of government agencies on behalf of consumers while CPI only tracks the amount spent by consumers directly. For this reason, we see that the medical care components of CPI and PCE are not closely correlated (Chart 3). In fact, CPI medical care inflation has been decelerating for some time while PCE medical care inflation has been grinding higher alongside the health care component of the Producer Price Index (PPI). The health care component of PPI was flat in April, but the underlying uptrend remains unbroken. We would expect the spread between core CPI and core PCE to tighten in the months ahead as relative medical care costs continue to converge (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Expect CPI and PCE To Converge Meanwhile, a forecast based on trends in the labor market would suggest that inflation is set to accelerate. This, in a nutshell, is the Fed's conundrum. It can rely on Phillips Curve-type inflation forecasts and risk tightening too quickly if inflation does not respond as expected. Or, it can rely on the actual inflation data and risk staying easy for too long. For now, we believe the Fed will cling firmly to the Phillips Curve option. In a speech from September 2015,3 Chair Yellen outlined her model for inflation forecasting. In Yellen's model, core inflation tends to fluctuate around a long-run trend that is determined by inflation expectations. Changes in resource utilization (aka the employment gap) and relative import prices can cause inflation to deviate from this trend but, as long as these shocks prove transitory, inflation should gradually move back toward the level determined by expectations. Inspired by this approach, we created a Phillips Curve model of core PCE - the output of which was shown in Chart 1 on page 1. Specifically, we model core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters Resource utilization (proxied by the difference between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate of the long-run natural unemployment rate) Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE The value of this approach is that we can assess how core inflation is likely to react to varying assumptions about inflation expectations, the unemployment rate, the natural unemployment rate (NAIRU), and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar. We use the trend in the dollar to forecast relative import prices. A stronger dollar leads to lower import prices, and vice-versa. Charts 4-7 show the results of running this model under four different scenarios. We conclude that it is very difficult to create a set of reasonable assumptions where core PCE inflation does not approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year end. Given that Fed policymakers are very likely using a similar framework, we would expect them to arrive at the same conclusion. Scenario 1: The Base Case. In the first scenario we assume that the unemployment rate stays at its current level (4.4%) and also that the trade-weighted dollar remains flat. We also use the CBO's NAIRU estimate and assume no change in inflation expectations. In this environment, our model projects that year-over-year core PCE inflation will reach 2.11% by the end of December (Chart 4). Scenario 2: Strong Dollar. In this scenario we make the same assumptions as in Scenario 1, except that we allow the dollar to appreciate at a pace of 10% per year. The result is that import price deflation is more pronounced, but year-over-year core PCE inflation is still projected to reach 1.95% by year end (Chart 5). Chart 4Phillips Curve Model: Base Case Scenario Chart 5Phillips Curve Model: Strong Dollar Scenario Scenario 3: Bad NAIRU. In this scenario we consider that the CBO's NAIRU assumption might be too high. Specifically, we allow NAIRU to decline linearly from 5.07% at the end of 2012 to 4% by the end of 2013, we then hold it constant at 4%. Currently, the CBO's NAIRU estimate is 4.74%. In this scenario we also hold the unemployment rate, inflation expectations and the dollar flat. The result is that year-over-year core PCE inflation is projected to reach 2.03% by the end of the year (Chart 6). Scenario 4: The Deflation Case. In this scenario we make the same NAIRU assumption as in Scenario 3, but also incorporate 10% per year dollar appreciation. In this most deflationary scenario, the model still projects 1.88% core PCE inflation at year end (Chart 7). Chart 6Phillips Curve Model: Bad NAIRU Scenario Chart 7Phillips Curve Model: The Deflation Case Bottom Line: Even in the most deflationary of our four scenarios we still project inflation that is very close to the Fed's median forecast. We expect the Fed will arrive at a similar conclusion and will stay on track for two more rate hikes this year. However, if the actual core inflation data do not respond by moving higher during the next 3-4 months, then the Fed's hawkish stance will increasingly come into question. The Fed's Balance Sheet Is The Treasury's Problem Janet Yellen is sure to face some questions about how the Fed plans to unwind its balance sheet at next month's FOMC press conference, but the truth is that we already have a lot of information about how the Fed intends to proceed. The more challenging questions should be asked to the Treasury department, since it is the Treasury that will decide in what form the Fed's balance sheet run-off ultimately finds its way back into private hands. We have written about this topic twice in recent months. First, we published a detailed Special Report on how we expect monetary policy to evolve from an operational perspective in February.4 Then, we updated our expectations based on information contained in the March FOMC minutes.5 This week, we provide some additional observations based on what we learned from the recent meeting of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (TBAC). Chart 8Fed's Balance Sheet Will Still Be Large First, a brief recap. The Fed has told us that it plans to: Start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming its growth forecasts remain intact) Shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both MBS and Treasury securities at the same time The Fed has still not decided whether it will simply cease reinvestment all at once, or whether reinvestment will be phased out gradually (i.e. "tapered"). It has also not provided any guidance on what level of reserve balances it intends to maintain going forward. In Chart 8 we show that even if the Fed decides to drain reserves all the way down to zero, this process is likely to be complete by mid-2021. In fact, it might not even take that long since we have assumed a relatively slow pace of $15 billion MBS run-off per month. What is notable is that the Fed's balance sheet will still be sizeable even after reserves have fallen to zero. The reason is that the Fed's balance sheet needs to increase over time to keep pace with the growth of currency in circulation. Our calculations show that by the time reserve balances reach zero in mid-2021, the Fed will still be holding $1.3 trillion of Treasury securities and $1.1 trillion of MBS. After 2021, the Fed would likely continue to allow MBS to run off, but would once again start reinvesting the proceeds into Treasuries. Where Does The Treasury Department Come In? At present, the Fed reinvests the proceeds from its maturing securities by purchasing Treasury notes and bonds at regularly scheduled auctions. This means that when the Fed ceases the reinvestment of the securities running off its balance sheet, the Treasury department will have to increase the amount of issuance that is made available to the public. The Treasury is therefore tasked with determining whether the extra issuance will take the form of T-bills, short-dated notes or long-dated bonds. At the most recent TBAC meeting, committee members seemed to favor a strategy where the extra issuance is spread evenly across all maturities in proportion to current auction sizes, and where the proportion of T-bills in the overall funding mix is held constant. In Chart 9 and Chart 10 we show what this will mean for gross Treasury issuance of 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year securities, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of GDP. Chart 9Gross Coupon Issuance: In Dollar Terms Chart 10Gross Coupon Issuance: % Of GDP Interestingly, the Treasury department decided against placing a larger portion of the extra issuance in T-bills, as we had thought they might, and we remain concerned about the lack of short-term low-risk debt instruments in the market. The demand for short-term, low-risk instruments - largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds - is in a secular uptrend. Prior to the financial crisis this demand was met by broker/dealers in the repo market. Then, when regulations killed the repo market, the Fed increased the supply of bank reserves to make up for the shortfall (Chart 11). If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We would not be surprised to see the Treasury increase the proportion of T-bills in its funding mix, from historically low levels (Chart 12), if stresses in short-term rates markets start to appear at some point down the road. Chart 11A Shortage Of Cash-Like Instruments Chart 12Bill Issuance Has Room To Rise Can The Treasury Market Absorb All The Extra Issuance? Obviously, the most important question is whether the Treasury market will be able to absorb the substantial extra issuance shown in Charts 9 & 10. There are two reasons why we don't think the extra issuance will have a material impact on yields. First, the path of inflation and the expected pace of rate hikes will continue to drive the movement in long-dated yields. While the inflation component of nominal yields is tied to realized inflation, the real component of yields is closely linked to the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart 13). From this perspective, it is difficult to see how shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet can have a material impact on yields unless it influences inflation or the expected pace of hikes. Second, the draining of reserves from the banking system will increase banks' demand for Treasury securities, providing a powerful offset to the increased supply of Treasuries. The newly implemented Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) mandates that banks must hold High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) that are at least sufficient to cover net cash outflows over a stressed 30-day period. HQLAs are divided into tiers, with Treasury securities and reserves at the Fed qualifying as Tier 1 assets. Agency MBS are considered Tier 2A assets, this means that a 15% haircut must be applied to MBS balances for the purposes of the HQLA calculation. An even larger haircut is applied to riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 14 shows the aggregate balances of reserves, Treasury securities and Agency MBS for all private depository institutions, as well as a proxy for banking sector HQLAs that we calculated to include only: reserves, Treasury securities, and agency MBS with a 15% haircut. Chart 13Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 14Banks Need Safe Assets As the Fed's balance sheet shrinks and reserves are drained from the banking system, banks will be forced to buy Treasuries in numbers that are at least sufficient to maintain mandated HQLA balances. At the moment, it is difficult to calculate how much Treasury buying will be necessary. The regulation only forces banks to start reporting their LCRs on a quarterly basis starting on April 1 of this year. Citigroup did report an LCR of 121% in its 2016 annual report, and we suspect that the ratios for other banks are in the same neighborhood. The mandated LCR is 100%. If Citigroup's reported LCR is a reasonable guide, this means that banks are just barely above mandated LCR levels. In other words, banks will need to replace almost all of the decline in bank reserves with purchases of Treasury securities. This surge in demand will offset a good chunk, if not all, of the extra Treasury issuance that is on its way. Bottom Line: The run-down of the Fed's balance sheet will lead to a substantial increase in gross Treasury issuance next year. Most, if not all, of this extra issuance will be met by increased demand from the banking sector. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5367/Will-Donald-Trump-be-president-at-year-end-2018#data 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment", dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights U.S. Politics: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Duration Checklists: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Europe: Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Feature The Economy Trumps Politics Chart of the WeekHas Anything Really Changed? A whiff of panic swept across global financial markets last week, as the political risk bugaboo came back with a vengeance. In the U.S., the deepening morass surrounding President Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director Comey, and the potential links to the ongoing investigation of the White House's ties to Russia, raised concerns that Trump's ambitious pro-growth policy agenda would never make it out of Congress. Even this year's darling in the Emerging Markets, Brazil, suffered a huge financial rout after news broke of corruption allegations against the current president. Amid growing talk of a potential impeachment of Trump, the market action was a classic risk-off move, with equity markets falling, the VIX finally waking from its slumber and safe-haven assets like gold, U.S. Treasuries and the Japanese yen rallying. The euro climbed to new 2017 highs versus the U.S. dollar, without any changes in expectations about potential policy moves from the European Central Bank (ECB), as the market knocked down the probability of a June Fed rate hike (Chart of the Week). Some creative commentators called these market moves "the Trump fade" - the beginnings of a reversal of the so-called "Trump trade" that has sent U.S. equity prices and bond yields higher since the U.S. election on expectations of a large U.S. fiscal stimulus. We remain skeptical, however, that expectations of tax cuts and increased government spending have been the main drivers of the post-election boost in U.S. stock prices and Treasury yields, as the current cyclical upturn in global growth was already underway before Trump's election victory. Our colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy service note that, despite Trump's terrible overall approval ratings (Chart 2), his support among his Republican voters remains strong (Chart 3). Thus, an impeachment is only likely if the Republicans were to lose control of the House of Representatives in next year's U.S. midterm elections. Fear of that outcome should motivate the GOP to try and push through tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the 2018 midterms, in order to present a positive economic message to voters.1 Unless the evidence against Trump becomes so damning that even the Republicans in Congress have to focus on impeachment instead of policy, investors should ride out any market volatility associated with worries that the Trump economic agenda is at risk. Chart 2Trump's Support Abysmal Chart 3GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Even without a boost to growth from D.C., however, we continue to expect the U.S. economy to grow above 2.5% in 2017. This above-trend pace will keep the Fed in play for at least two additional rate hikes before year-end, as it would give policymakers confidence that U.S. inflation expectations would return back the Fed's 2% target. In addition, as we discuss in the next section, the cyclical upturn in the Euro Area economy is showing no signs of cooling off, which will put more pressure on the ECB to begin preparing the markets for an eventual tapering of its asset purchases. The recent decline in bond yields is unlikely to persist much longer. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors look through the political noise in D.C., which is unlikely to arrest the current cyclical economic upturn. Maintain a pro-growth asset allocation within fixed income portfolios: below-benchmark duration, favoring corporate credit over government bonds, especially in the U.S. Checking In On Our Duration Checklists In a Special Report published back in February, we introduced a list of indicators to follow to assess the likely direction of U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields.2 We called these our "Duration Checklists", incorporating data on economic growth, inflation, investor risk aversion and market technicals to judge whether our bias to maintain a below-benchmark duration stance should be maintained. This week, we provide an update on those Checklists. The current message from the Checklists is that there is reduced upward pressure on bond yields from the overall strength of the global economy than existed four months ago. Domestic forces, however, are still pointing to higher yields in the U.S. and, especially, the Euro Area (Table 1). Specifically: Table 1A More Bond-Bearish Backdrop For Bunds Than USTs Global economic activity indicators have lost some momentum. While the global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still rising, our global LEI diffusion index has fallen sharply and is now below the 50 line, indicating that a more countries now have a falling LEI. In addition, the global ZEW index has drifted a touch lower, global data surprises are no longer positive, and the global credit impulse has ticked downward (Chart 4). Only the rising LEI warrants a "check" in our Checklists (i.e. justifies our current below-benchmark duration stance). U.S. & European domestic economic activity remains in good shape. Consumer and business confidence remains at strong levels on either side of the Atlantic, with corporate profit growth still accelerating (Charts 5 & 6). Only the modest decline in the U.S. manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI) is worthy of an "x" in our U.S. Checklist, although the index remains well above 50 and is not pointing to a more serious deterioration in the U.S. economy. Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Has##BR##Turned Less Bond-Bearish Chart 5U.S. Economic Strength##BR##Still Supports Higher UST Yields Chart 6Euro Area Growth Is##BR##Gaining Upward Momentum Inflation pressures have eased a bit, especially in the U.S. The slowing momentum in global energy prices has taken some of the steam out of headline inflation in both the U.S. and Europe. Wage inflation has eased up a bit in the U.S., even with the labor market running at full employment (Chart 7). Wage growth and core inflation have recently ticked higher in the Euro Area, however, while the unemployment rate there has fallen to within less than a percentage point away from the OECD estimate of the NAIRU (Chart 8).3 The only indicators worthy of a "check" are the unemployment gap in both the U.S. and Euro Area, although we will give a potential "check" (with a question mark) to European wage inflation. If the recent uptick gains additional momentum, the case for the ECB to begin moving to a less accommodative policy stance will be much stronger. Chart 7Inflation Pressures On UST Yields Have Eased Chart 8Core Inflation & Wages Bottoming Out In Europe? There is still a pro-risk bias among global investors. U.S. and Euro Area equity markets are still in bullish trends, trading well above their 200-day moving averages. At the same time, corporate credit spreads remain tight and option-implied equity volatility is very low (even after last week's pop in the U.S. on the Trump drama). All indicators are worthy of a "check", suggesting that easier financial conditions can lead to higher bond yields (Charts 9 & 10). We are, however, giving an "x" to the European Checklist for the deviation of the Stoxx 600 from its moving average, as it is now at the +10% extreme that we defined as being potentially bond-bullish as it could foreshadow a near-term correction of an overheated stock market. Chart 9Still Generally A Risk-Seeking Backdrop In The U.S. Chart 10Strong Risk-Seeking Behavior In Europe Bond markets no longer look technically stretched. The sharp move higher in yields at the end of 2016 left all our indicators of yield momentum at bearish extremes (for bond prices). With bond yields pulling back from 2017 highs, however, the momentum measures all look neutral at the moment and are not an impediment to higher yields (Charts 11 & 12). The same goes for duration positioning in the U.S., with the net longs on 10-year Treasury futures now at the highest level since 2007. All of the technical indicators in our Checklists warrant an "check". Chart 11UST Technicals No##BR##Longer Stretched Chart 12Technicals Are No Impediment##BR##To Higher Yields In Europe Summing it all up, our Duration Checklists show that the majority of indicators are still pointing to higher bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, although not as decisively as when we first published the Checklists in February. There are more "check" on the European side of the ledger, however, suggesting that there is more room for European government bond yields to rise relative to U.S. Treasuries. This would indicate a potential trade opportunity to cut allocations to Europe and raise allocations to the U.S. Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Is Now Too Low The recent decline in U.S. yields, however, has narrowed the U.S. Treasury/German Bund spread to levels that make putting on a tightening trade unattractive on a tactical basis. (Chart 13). The gap between the data surprise indices in the U.S. and Euro Area already reflects the recent soft patch for the U.S. economy (middle panel). That spread in the surprise indices now at historically wide levels, suggesting more potential for Treasury yields to rise if the U.S. data begins to rebound soon, as we expect. Also, the gap between U.S. and Euro Area inflation expectations has narrowed alongside the recent downtick in U.S. core inflation (bottom panel), although we expect the decline in U.S. core inflation to be short-lived given the persistent tightness of the U.S. labor market. Net-net, we would prefer to see a wider Treasury-Bund spread before making switching our country exposure out of Europe and into the U.S. We can, however, listen to the message from our Checklists and reduce our duration exposure in Europe. Specifically, we are cutting our allocations to the longer maturity buckets (5 years out to 30 years) by 50% in our model portfolio for Germany, France and Italy, putting the proceeds into the 1-3 year buckets (see the table on Page 12). This will reduce our overall recommended portfolio duration by just over 1/10th of a year, as well as put an additional bear-steepening curve tilt within our European government allocations. We are comfortable with that bias, given the growing risk that the ECB will soon begin signaling a tapering of asset purchases once the current program expires at the end of the year. Bottom Line: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop remains conducive to rising Euro Area bond yields, while the upward pressures on U.S. yields have diminished somewhat. The majority of the indicators, however, continue to point to higher U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Reduce European duration exposure, but wait for wider spread levels before moving out of European government bonds into U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment", dated May 17 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Upgrade packaged food stocks to overweight. Enough value creation has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Get ready to book profits. Resist the temptation to bottom fish in steel stocks. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues should weigh on steel profits. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods - Upgrade to overweight. S&P Utilities - Downgrade Alert. Table 1 Feature The market waffled last week, but quickly recovered. The upshot is that investors still appear content to look through the circus in Washington, focused instead on the positive reflationary dynamics supporting the corporate sector. Financial conditions have eased considerably ever since the Fed resumed its tightening campaign last December. Equity price gains, narrowing credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar have more than offset the negative impact of the back-up in bond yields. Cheap equity capital also remains easily accessible. While the labor market is tightening, BCA argues that the headline unemployment rate may understate slack given the large number of part-time workers that want to work full-time and prime-age workers that are still out of work. With core inflation surprising to the downside in recent months, there is no urgency for the Fed to slam the brakes. In other words, there is more than enough monetary fuel to sustain the equity overshoot. Easy financial conditions will allow investors to extrapolate the profit recovery (Chart 1), especially since it has been sales driven for the first time in years. It is notable that while consumer price inflation has softened, in aggregate, businesses are not feeling any renewed deflationary pressure. The depreciation in the U.S. dollar has been a critical support for U.S. businesses. Our corporate sector pricing power proxy continues to accelerate (Chart 1), arguing that revenue growth should persist. The combination of muted consumer price inflation yet positive corporate sector inflation is a stock market positive, all else equal. Digging beneath the surface, divergent sector inflation trends are increasingly evident. The commodity-linked energy and materials sectors have lost upward pricing power momentum (Chart 2), courtesy of the cooling in China. Technology sector selling prices are sinking deeper into deflationary territory, albeit the FANG juggernaut pays no attention to sector specific forces. Telecom services pricing power has also taken a header (Chart 2). On the plus side, other defensive sectors, including utilities, are still able to raise prices at a much greater rate than overall inflation. Even the pace of financial sector price hikes is at the top end of its long-term range (Chart 3). Chart 1Sustained Profit Expansion ##br##Requires Easy Financial Conditions Chart 2Some Softness In ##br##Cyclical Pricing Power... Chart 3...But Defensive Selling##br## Prices Are Resilient The upshot is that selectivity remains a critical portfolio input rather than simply tracking the broad S&P 500. These forces should allow the market to continue grinding higher into overshoot territory. The latter means that the market is increasingly vulnerable to minor external shocks. Ergo, we continue to recommend a selective weighting in some 'safe' areas, such as consumer staples, which are undervalued in relative terms and will buffet portfolios should volatility escalate further. This week we are taking advantage of the drubbing in food stocks to augment positions. Packaged Foods: Going Against The Grain After a surge to all-time relative performance highs in mid-2016, the S&P packaged foods index has deflated by roughly 20%. Two key reasons are behind the downdraft: the allure to hold stable cash flow companies has diminished since the November election, and weak industry-specific metrics - in particular pricing power and sales contraction amid private label competition. Despite these negatives, our sense is that enough value destruction has occurred to create an attractive entry point in this consumer goods sub-index. Relative valuations reflect most of these investor worries. The relative forward P/E ratio has de-rated to below the two-decade average, and our Valuation Indicator (VI) is near one standard deviation below the historical mean. In fact, every time the VI falls to such an undervalued extreme, relative performance stages a sizable comeback (Chart 4). Technical conditions are also washed out. Relative performance momentum has plunged to the lowest level in a decade, and likely fully reflects investor angst. Deeply oversold readings and undervaluation suggest that a full bearish capitulation has occurred, which is contrarily positive. Encouragingly, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Grain price deflation (shown inverted, third panel, Chart 4) suggests that industry input costs are well contained, and will underpin profit margins. It is normal for falling grain prices to coincide with upward revisions to analyst profit estimates (second panel, Chart 4). While industry sales are mired in deflation, there are high odds that top line growth will exit deflation by early 2018. Consumer outlays on food and beverages are brisk, and wholesale food manufacturing prices have recently reaccelerated. Chart 5 shows that industry revenues follow the trend in consumption and pricing power, underscoring that profitability is set to expand anew. True, private label competition and grocery store market share wars have put pressure on industry pricing power. But as long as food manufacturers can keep input costs under control, profit margins should remain wide. A simple industry profit margin gauge (PPI food manufacturing versus PPI crude food) gives us comfort that margins will remain resilient (bottom panel, Chart 5). Importantly, packaged food producers are well positioned to fight back against food retailers' demands for price concessions. Robust consumer outlays on food and beverages are corroborated by real retail sales at food stores, which are bucking the deceleration in overall retail sales (third panel, Chart 6). The hook up in food manufacturing hours worked confirms that industry activity is on the mend, which bodes well for productivity gains. Sell-side analysts have taken notice. Positive earnings revisions will continue to outstrip negative ones. Chart 4Buy Against The Grain Chart 5End Of The Revenue Lull... Chart 6...As Demand Recovers Finally, food and beverage exports have held onto recent double-digit growth gains despite the strong greenback. Now that the U.S. dollar is under some pressure, especially against the euro and emerging market currencies, foreign sales should provide a further relief valve should domestic pricing pressures persist for a little longer than we expect (second panel, Chart 6). In sum, while investors have rushed for the exits in the defensive S&P packaged foods index, a buying opportunity has emerged. Relative valuations have corrected to the lower end of their historic range and already reflect investor profitability worries. Our thesis is that a domestic demand-driven recovery has commenced and strict cost control, along with food commodity deflation, should sustain profit margins. Bottom Line: Start a buy program in the S&P packaged foods index, and boost exposure to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK - MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, MJN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K. Our Utilities Overweight Is Starting To Pay Off Our tactical overweight in the S&P utilities sector is beginning to bear fruit. Importantly, the five factors that drove this decision are starting to play out1, albeit in varying degrees of magnitude. Chart 7 shows that the U.S. economic soft patch has persisted. Hard data have not yet caught up to the surge in 'soft' data, such as sentiment and confidence surveys. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is inversely correlated with the relative share price ratio. Similarly, the ISM manufacturing index has crested. Our analysis shows that forward relative returns are strong after the ISM manufacturing survey hits extremely high levels, given that mean reversion ultimately occurs. The upshot is that utilities relative performance has more upside. The yield curve has also moved favorably for utilities stocks. The 10/2 Treasury curve has flattened since early January, as economic data continue to surprise to the downside, underscoring that the tactical utilities buy signal remains intact. The third reason to augment utilities exposure was the ebbing in inflation expectations. The latter continues unabated (Chart 7). Our recent Special Report highlighted that utilities suffer in times of inflation2. But the opposite is also true: utilities stocks outperform in times of disinflation/deflation. This reflects the stable rate of return regulated utilities enjoy, in addition to the increased appeal of dividend yields and cash flow during times of economic volatility and uncertainty. Finally, natural gas prices are firm. Utilities pricing power moves in lockstep with natural gas prices (middle panel, Chart 8). The latter are the marginal price setter for non-regulated utilities, and the recent price reacceleration could be a positive catalyst (bottom panel, Chart 8). Nevertheless, the utilities share price reaction has been more muted than we had expected, at least so far, perhaps reflecting the ongoing outperformance of stocks vs. bonds, and the weakness in electricity production growth (Chart 9). If the five factors begin to lose momentum, we will recommend booking profits in this tactical overweight position. Chart 7Prepare To Book Profits... Chart 8...When Utilities Turbocharge Chart 9Two Utilities Risks To Monitor Bottom Line: Stick with overweight exposure in the S&P utilities sector for now, but get ready to book profits in the coming weeks. Put utilities on downgrade alert. Rusting Steel Stocks Steel stocks have come full circle. Following the initial euphoria since the Trump election, the relative share price ratio is now roughly where it was in early November. There is more downside ahead. China is tapping the monetary brakes, attempting to contain the shadow banking system. However, it is difficult to target one segment of the economy through monetary policy. Tight policy is starting to backlash onto commodity prices, including steel and iron ore. A number of indicators suggest that China's internal dynamics will further undermine global steel share prices. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the recent Chinese yield curve inversion is pointing toward more pain ahead for U.S. steel producers. Further, the Chinese credit impulse is waning. Historically, BCA's Chinese Credit Impulse Indicator (CII) has an excellent track record forecasting relative performance momentum. The latest grim CII reading warns that U.S. steel stocks have more downside (second panel, Chart 10). Slower Chinese credit creation will continue to weigh on infrastructure spending. Chinese capital expenditure and loan growth are joined at the hip. Feeble loan growth suggests that fewer projects will come to fruition (third panel, Chart 10). Sinking iron ore prices reflect this grim outlook. The implication is that overly optimistic relative profit estimates are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 10). True, Chinese steel exports and domestic production have eased, which suggests that the risk of a steel inventory glut has receded. Nevertheless, U.S. steel imports have climbed anew, despite ongoing steel tariffs. As steel imports command a larger share of U.S. domestic production, price deflation is necessary to resolve this imbalance (Chart 11). This will cast a shadow on steel profit prospects. Steel industry troubles are not endemic to China. Worrisomely, U.S. steel demand dynamics remain unfavorable. Two key domestic end-markets are quickly losing steam. Commercial real estate and automobile excesses are starting to correct. Banks are reining in credit to both loan categories according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (second panel, Chart 12). Simultaneously, within commercial real estate, construction and land development credit demand is also anemic. With regard to consumer loan categories, auto loan demand has registered the worst showing. Chart 10China Macro Weighs On Steel Chart 11Steel Deflation Looms Chart 12Weak Domestic End-Markets Provide No Relief Already, non-residential construction is flirting with contraction and light vehicle sales are sinking like a stone (third panel, Chart 12). As a result the steel industry's new orders-to-inventories ratio has come off the boil, exerting a gravitational pull on scrap steel prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). The implication is that steel price deflation will undermine industry profits. Adding it up, the U.S. steel industry's earnings hurdle is sky-high. Tightening Chinese monetary and financial conditions along with domestic demand blues signal that U.S. steel producers' profits will surprise to the downside. Bottom Line: Continue to avoid steel stocks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 steel index are: BLBG: S15STEL - TMST, ATI, CMC, X, AKS, CRS, HAYN, RS, ZEUS, WOR, SXC, STLD, NUE. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Great Expectations?" dated April 3, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated December 5, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Politics will inject further volatility into risk assets, but stocks will outperform bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. The health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes for investors and the Fed. The consumer - a key driver of the U.S. economy and corporate earnings - will provide a solid backdrop for the economy through 2017 and beyond. The combination of balance sheet shrinkage and Fed rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. It is a different story for the mortgage market, where spreads will be biased to widen during Fed runoff. Feature The Economy Matters More Than Politics The health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes for investors and the Fed. When the economy and earnings backdrop was favorable during presidential scandals in the 1920s and the 1990s, the equity markets performed well. In the early 70s, amid soaring inflation and the worst recession since the Great Depression, there was a bear market in equities (Chart 1). Today, the backdrop for the economy and earnings - while not as robust as in the 1920s or late 1990s - provides support for higher stock prices, two more Fed rate hikes and higher Treasury bond yields. Trump's political woes may slow, but not completely halt the GOP's legislative agenda1. Support for Trump among his GOP base remains high at 85%, making impeachment a long shot until after the November 2018 mid-term elections (Chart 2). If the Democrats take the House, they are likely to impeach Trump in 2019. For the Trump and the Republicans in Congress, this means the impetus is even greater to make progress now on tax cuts, tax reform and infrastructure. However, the embattled White House will slow the process as the president's staff often acts as a coordinator among the various factions in Congress. With Trump's team preoccupied with political woes, they will not be effective in this role. Chart 1Economy Will Trump Politics ##br## For Financial Markets Chart 2GOP Base Not Yet Willing To ##br## Impeach Trump The Fed will look through the politics and focus on the health of the economy and will continue to raise rates gradually this year, with the next hike coming in June. Financial conditions have eased since the Fed's 25 basis point rate hike in December, and that alone should be enough to keep the Fed on track to tighten next month. As we have noted in recent reports, even without fiscal stimulus, the U.S. economy will still grow near its long-term potential, tighten the labor market and push up wages and inflation. The Fed has been reticent to include any impact from fiscal stimulus into their policy deliberations thus far. The minutes of the March FOMC meeting noted that "members continued to judge that there was significant uncertainty about the effects of possible changes in fiscal and other government policies". Bottom Line: The lack of progress on legislation may result in a pullback in U.S. equity prices, but absent a material weakening of the U.S. economy or profit picture, the pullback will not turn into a bear market. Checking In On The Consumer The consumer - a key driver of the U.S. economy and corporate earnings - will provide a solid backdrop for the economy through 2017 and beyond. This backdrop will allow the Fed to pursue two rate hikes this year. The weakness in several indicators has worried some investors that the economy may be on the verge of a slowdown or even a collapse. However, a firming economy should sustain corporate earnings growth and, ultimately, higher stock prices. Consumer spending's share of GDP is 68% and increasing (Chart 3). GDP growth excluding consumer spending is more volatile than overall GDP growth. The household sector has contributed 75% to growth since the end of the recession, which is the best performance of any sector. The key drivers of spending point to further gains in the sector, and the imbalances that were present ahead of prior downturns are not evident today. Chart 3Household Share Of GDP Is At An All Time High And Rising Chart 4Consumer Spending Remains In An Uptrend Household spending growth has softened but remains in an uptrend. Broad measures of consumer spending tend to peak two to four years prior to the start of a recession. The lead time is even longer in a long-cycle expansion.2 Investors should not dismiss the weakness altogether, but position portfolios for the late-cycle environment. Personal consumption expenditure growth peaked at 4% year-over-year in Q1 2015. Auto sales, a timelier measure of spending although not as comprehensive, peaked in December 2016 (Chart 4). Applying the 2 to 4 year lead time noted above - and making the assumption that spending has indeed peaked - this points to a recession commencing in the middle of 2019 at the earliest. Household net worth is at an all-time high, and the overall wealth effect on consumer spending has been positive for some time. Our forecast for financial markets and the housing market, though modest, imply that the positive wealth effect will continue. Debt-financed spending remains a viable option for consumers, which was not the case in late 2007 before the onset of the recession. Banks have not changed their lending standards for most consumer loans and demand for these loans will stay solid despite the Fed rate increases that we expect. The Bank Credit Analyst's March 2017 report showed that even a 100-basis point rate rise from the current levels would not lift the interest payments to burdensome levels by historical standards. Incomes will continue to climb and importantly, consumer income expectations have also hit new highs. With the economy at the Fed's assessment of full employment, wage growth is accelerating, albeit more modestly than in previous recoveries. Our recent report3 found that wages tend to rise about two years after the output gap has formed a bottom. A narrowing output gap leads to a tighter labor market and higher incomes. As measured by the quit rate, job security is at a fresh cycle high (not shown). Many consumer indicators are in better shape today than they were in 2007 or at similar points in the other long cycles4 (Charts 5 and 6). We define the long cycle economic expansions as those lasting 8-10 years. The two expansions that meet the definition are 1981-1990 and 1992-2001.5 Consumer spending is running in line with incomes, unlike in the mid-2000s. Chart 5Key Consumer Metrics ##br## Remain Favorable Chart 6There Is Still Plenty Of Support ##br## For Solid Consumer Spending Mortgage equity withdrawal, a crucial source of debt-fueled consumer spending prior to 2007, has been non-existent in this cycle. Spending on essentials are close to all-time lows. In 2007 they were at record highs and had moved up dramatically in the prior half-decade amid escalating debt levels, rising energy prices and consumer interest rates. We are concerned by the historically high percentage of household incomes (17%) dedicated to medical care. An aging population, ever rising healthcare costs and uncertainty surrounding the future of Obamacare may drive medical spending even higher. Household debt levels as a percentage of disposable income peaked in 2008 at over 120%, but are back under 100%, i.e. at the level that existed prior to the 2007-2009 recession. The level of household debt compares favorably to similar points in the long cycles of the 1980s and 1990s. Financial obligations are at multi-decade lows (Chart 6, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The fundamentals supporting consumer spending remain solid. A healthy consumer means the economy can meet the Fed's modest GDP forecast for 2017, keeping the central bank on track to tighten twice more in 2017. This outlook supports our view for stocks over bonds in the next 6-12 months. The Fed's Balance Sheet: It's Diet Time Chart 7Fed Set To Begin Tapering In Early 2018 The minutes from the March FOMC meeting indicated that a change in the Fed's reinvestment policy will likely be appropriate "later this year". The minutes suggested that the FOMC is split on whether to simply terminate all reinvestment for both Treasurys and MBS, or to "taper" reinvestment over time. Our base case is that the Fed will follow up a June rate hike with another one in September, at which point policymakers will provide some details on their plans for balance sheet runoff to begin in January of 2018. Investors are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the runoff, especially given that memories of the 2013 "taper tantrum" are still fresh. There is disagreement among academics about whether quantitative easing (QE) directly depressed bond yields by restricting the supply of high-quality fixed income assets, or whether the impact on yields was solely via the "signaling effect" (i.e. that QE implied that short-rates will be held at a low level for a very long time). Either way, balance sheet runoff will likely have some impact on bond yields. A good starting point is to employ an empirical estimate of the impact of QE. The IMF has modeled long-term Treasury yields based on a number of economic and financial variables, including inflation expectations, demographics, growth, current accounts and budget balances. The model also includes the stock of assets held by the Fed as a share of GDP. If the Fed were to begin running off its holdings of both Treasurys and MBS at the beginning of 2018 by terminating all reinvestment, then the amount of bank reserves held at the Fed would likely evaporate by 2021. This represents a fall of roughly 10 percentage points of GDP (Chart 7). Given the IMF interest rate model's coefficient of -0.9, it implies that long-term Treasury yields and mortgage rates would rise by 90 basis points from the "portfolio balance" effect alone. However, it is more complicated than that. The impact on yields is likely to be tempered by three factors: The Fed may opt to avoid going "cold turkey" on reinvestment, choosing instead to scale back gradually. Fed President William Dudley recently commented that the Fed wants balance sheet reduction to "run in the background", such that it is not a major event for markets. Some academic experts are recommending that the Fed maintain a fairly large balance sheet by historical standards because of the need in financial markets for short-term, risk-free assets that would diminish if there are fewer excess bank reserves available. Banks, for example, are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years. The implication is that the balance sheet may never fully revert to historic norms relative to GDP. As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions get too tight, too quickly (i.e. the term premium would rise, but would be partly offset by a lower expected path for the fed funds rate). Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimated that a $675 billion reduction in the size of the Fed's balance sheet is equivalent to a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate (although the authors admit that the confidence band around this estimate is extremely wide).6 We expect that the impact of runoff alone will be much less than the 90 basis point estimate discussed above. Still, the combination of balance sheet shrinkage and Fed rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than is currently discounted in the market. We could also see some upward pressure on global term premia when the ECB announces the next tapering of its QE purchase program, possibly this autumn. However, it will be years before the ECB will be in a position to reduce the size of its balance sheet. As for the Bank of Japan, we doubt that the central bank will ever shed its JGB holdings. What about the shape of the Treasury curve? Our fixed-income strategists believe that the shape of the curve will be determined by the normal cyclical dynamics we have seen in the past. We are still in a window in which the Treasury curve will steepen as yields rise. A little later in the Fed cycle, the curve will bear-flatten as the long-end begins to rise at a slower pace than the front end. We do not see balance sheet adjustment as changing these dynamics much. Similarly, with respect to credit spreads, the state of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets and the overall stance of monetary policy will continue to be the main drivers of the credit cycle. If unwinding the balance sheet leads to a premature tightening of financial conditions, then the Fed will proceed more slowly on rate hikes. The crucial indicator to watch is core PCE inflation. Credit spreads will remain fairly well contained until core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target. At that point, the pace of monetary normalization will ramp up, putting spreads at risk of widening. It is a different story for the mortgage market, where spreads will be biased to widen during Fed runoff. While spreads have already widened a bit, in our view they still do not adequately compensate for the additional MBS supply that will hit the market when the Fed takes a step back. Historically, there is a reasonably tight correlation between MBS spreads and the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields (Chart 8). Thus, it is reasonable to expect mortgage rates to rise by more than Treasury yields. Chart 8MBS Spreads Set To Widen As Fed Tapers While the Fed's balance sheet reduction by itself may not have a big impact on the dollar, we still believe the currency has more upside because of the divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) on the other. The BoJ will hold the 10-year JGB near to zero for quite some time. The ECB will also not be in a position to tighten for a long time, outside of removing negative short rates and tapering QE purchases a bit further in 2018. Meanwhile, we think the Fed will tighten by more than is currently discounted. Admittedly, the economic data have disappointed so far in 2017 and CPI inflation has softened which, at the margin, would cause some FOMC members to back away from rate hikes. Nonetheless, policymakers are focused more on the labor market than GDP to gauge the health of the expansion and the amount of economic slack. Despite the dismal Q1 GDP figures, following unimpressive growth in 2016, the unemployment rate has already fallen below what the FOMC expected the rate will be at the end of this year! A tightening labor market means that the economy is still growing above a trend pace. Unless there is a clear deceleration in wage growth as measured by the ECI or the Productivity and Cost report, the FOMC will likely hike rates by more than the 38 basis points currently discounted over the next 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 See Geopolitical Strategy Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," May 17, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 See The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 See U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Awaiting the Next Pullback", May 15, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 See The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 We did not include the 1960s in this analysis because the Fed waited too long to tighten and allowed inflation to get out of hand. 6 Forecasting the Stance of Monetary Policy Under Balance Sheet Adjustments. The Macro Bulletin, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Troy Davig and A. Lee Smith. May 10, 2017.

Special Report

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report, I am sending you our usual Weekly Report focusing on the market implications from the brewing crisis in the Trump White House. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Chart 1Commodity Prices: A Halting Comeback Commodity prices have managed to stage a halting comeback over the past two weeks, but still remain well below their highs for the year. Concerns over the Chinese economy, a withdrawal of speculative demand, and strong supply growth have all weighed on commodity prices. All three of these forces should ebb over the coming months. This should provide a more benign cyclical backdrop for commodities and commodity-related investment plays. We went long the December 2017 Brent futures contract two weeks ago. The trade is up 7.8% since then. Stick with it. The cyclical recovery in commodity prices will benefit DM commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, and NOK. Go short EUR/CAD. Feature What's Been Weighing On Commodities? Commodity prices have managed to stage a halting comeback over the past two weeks, but still remain well below their highs for the year (Chart 1). We see three reasons why commodities have struggled to gain traction over the past few months: Fears that the Chinese economy is losing growth momentum have intensified. Traders have soured on the commodity complex, causing speculative demand to fizzle. Skepticism about OPEC's ability to maintain production discipline has been running high. All three of these forces should ebb over the coming months. This should provide a more benign cyclical backdrop for commodities and commodity-related investment plays. Global Growth: An Uneven Picture After a strong end to 2016, global growth so far this year has been mixed. The euro area has continued to hum along, with real GDP increasing by 2% in Q1 on an annualized basis. Japanese growth clocked in at 2.2% in Q1. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter of positive growth - the first time this has happened in 11 years! In contrast, U.K. growth slowed to 1.2% in Q1, while the U.S. registered a disappointing 0.7% growth print. As discussed in the Weekly Report that accompanies this Special Report, the U.S. economy is likely to bounce back over the remainder of the year, notwithstanding the ongoing soap opera that has become the Trump presidency. However, even if that happens, traders have become increasingly concerned that stronger U.S. growth will be offset by weaker growth in China. China Growth Risks Back In Focus All four Chinese purchasing manager indices fell in April (Chart 2). This week's data releases saw below-consensus growth in industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment. Tighter financial conditions have contributed to the recent growth shortfall (Chart 3). The PBoC has drained excess liquidity over the past few months, causing overnight rates to rise. Corporate bond yields have surged while Chinese small cap stocks have taken it on the chin. The slowdown in Chinese growth is a cause for concern, but some perspective is in order. The economy began the year on a strong footing. Nominal GDP increased by 11.8% in Q1, compared with 9.6% in Q4 of 2016. Real GDP rose by 6.9% in the first quarter, comfortably above the government's target of 6.5%. A modest slowdown from these levels is not surprising. Most indicators point to an economy that is still expanding at a decent clip. Export growth is accelerating and our China team's model suggests that this will remain the case, thanks to solid global demand and a competitive RMB (Chart 4). America's latest anti-dumping measures on some Chinese steel products are irrelevant from a big picture point of view, as U.S. steel imports from China only account for a mere 1% of Chinese steel output. Chart 2China: PMIs Falling Across The Board Chart 3Financial Conditions Have Tightened In China Chart 4China: The Rebound In Exports Should Continue Meanwhile, fixed investment is benefiting from an upturn in the profit cycle. Chart 5 shows that excavator sales, railway freight traffic, and the PBoC's Entrepreneur Confidence Index - all leading indicators for Chinese capex - are surging. Even the housing market is well positioned to withstand some policy tightening. Land purchases by developers have rebounded and the most recent central bank survey showed that households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high in the first quarter (Chart 6). Chart 5Positive Signs For Chinese Capex... Chart 6...And The Housing Market Efforts Focused On Containing Financial Risk Most of the government's tightening measures have been designed to reduce financial sector risks while inflicting as little collateral damage on the economy as possible. So far, this strategy appears to be working: While broad credit growth has slowed from a high of 25.7% in January 2016 to 15.5% in April of 2017, almost all of that was due to a deceleration in borrowing by non-bank financial institutions. The pace of lending to nonfinancial private borrowers and the government - the so-called "real economy" - has barely fallen from last year. In fact, medium- and long-term loans to the corporate sector, a key driver of overall capital spending, have accelerated (Chart 7). The inversion of the Chinese yield curve largely reflects these macroprudential measures. The spread between 10-year and 5-year government bond yields turned negative last week, the first time this has ever happened (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Credit Growth To The Real EconomyBarely Affected By Tightening Measures Chart 8Chinese Yield Curve Inversion Some pundits have interpreted this development as an omen of a coming recession. However, there is a less dramatic explanation: Up until recently, non-bank financial institutions have been issuing so-called wealth management products like crazy. According to Moody's, the outstanding value of these products soared from U.S. $72 billion in 2007 to $4.2 trillion in the first quarter of 2017. The crackdown on shadow banking has forced many participants to liquidate their positions which, in many cases, included substantial leveraged holdings of government bonds. Since 5-year bonds are less liquid than their 10-year counterparts, yields on the former have increased more than on the latter. The Commodity Connection While the data is sketchy, it appears that Chinese non-bank financial institutions have been major players in the commodities market. As funding to these institutions - and their clients - dried up, panic selling of commodity futures contracts ensued. This withdrawal of Chinese investment demand for commodity markets began at time when, globally, long speculative positions were highly elevated. Chart 9 shows that net long spec positions as a share of open interest for energy and industrial commodities reached the highest levels in over a decade earlier this year. Today, speculative positioning has returned to more normal levels. This reduces the risk of a further downdraft in commodity prices. At the same time, the Chinese authorities appear to be relaxing some of their earlier tightening measures. The PBoC re-started its Medium-Term Lending Facility (MLF) earlier this week. It also made the largest one-day cash injection into the financial system in nearly four months on Tuesday. This follows the release of stronger-than-expected credit numbers for April, as well as Premier Li Keqiang's call over the weekend for "striking a balance" between enhancing financial stability and maintaining growth. Adding to the newfound easing bias, general government fiscal spending is now recovering (Chart 10). Chart 9Commodities: Long Speculative Positions Returning To More Normal Levels Chart 10China: Fiscal Spending Is On The Mend Oil Supply Should Tighten Chart 11Oil Inventories Should Decline Tighter supply conditions in various parts of the commodity complex should reinforce the upward pressure on prices stemming from firming demand. This is especially true for crude oil. Saudi Arabia and Russia announced earlier this week that they will support an extension of output cuts through to March 2018. Despite a sharp recovery in shale output, BCA's energy strategists expect global production to increase by only 0.5 MMB/d in 2017 compared to 1.5 MMB/d growth in consumption. Consequently, oil inventories should fall over the remainder of this year. Inventory draws will continue through 2018, albeit at a slower pace than in 2017 (Chart 11). Larger-than-expected declines in U.S. oil inventories over the past two weeks, along with a steep reduction in the volume of oil held in tanker ships (so-called "floating storage"), suggest that this trend has already begun. Some Investment Implications Fading fears about a China slowdown and a tighter supply picture will lift commodity prices over the remainder of the year. We went long the December 2017 Brent futures contract two weeks ago. The trade is up 7.8% since then. We are targeting a further 10% in upside from current levels. The cyclical recovery in commodity prices will benefit the stocks and bonds of companies within the resource sector. It will also benefit DM commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, and NOK. In addition, rising commodity prices will provide a tailwind to emerging markets, although Fed rate hikes and the occasional political scandal (here's looking at you, Brazil!) will take some bloom off the rose. The prospect of higher commodity prices supports our recommendation to be overweight euro area stocks relative to U.S. equities. The IMF estimates that the European economy is three-times more sensitive to changes in EM growth than the U.S. (Chart 12).1 If higher commodity prices give emerging markets a boost, this will help Europe's large industrial exporting companies. Calculations by JP Morgan suggest that petrostate sovereign wealth funds hold five times more European equities than U.S. stocks, even though European stocks account for less than half the global market capitalization of U.S. stocks.2 These funds are especially exposed to European financials and consumer discretionary names. Higher oil prices would give them greater scope to add to their favorite positions. What about EUR/USD? The run-up in the euro over the past few weeks was partly driven by the unwinding of sizable short hedges that traders put on in the lead up to the French elections. At this point, euro positioning has moved from being highly bearish to broadly neutral. Going forward, fundamentals will play the dominant role. On the one hand, an outperforming euro area equity market should attract foreign capital into the region, giving the common currency a boost. On the other hand, interest rate differentials will continue to move in favor of the dollar. As we discussed last week, the Fed is likely to raise rates by more than the 38 basis points that markets are currently pricing in over the next 12 months.3 In contrast, the ECB is likely to stand pat, given that the rate of labor underutilization is still 18% in the euro area, 3.5 percentage points higher than in 2008 (Chart 13). If anything, rising inflation expectations in the euro area could cause real short-term rates to decline, putting downward pressure on the euro. Chart 12Europe Is More Sensitive To EM Chart 13Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High Our research indicates that real interest rate differentials are by far the most important drivers of currency returns over cyclical horizons of around 12 months. The decline in the dollar over the past few weeks has occurred alongside an increase in real rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. Notably, two-year real rate differentials have widened by 47 basis points versus the euro area since the end of March, even though the dollar has actually weakened against the euro over this timeframe (Chart 14). Thus, a period of "catch-up strength" for the dollar is in order. We continue to expect EUR/USD to reach parity by the end of the year. With all this in mind, we are opening a new trade today: Short EUR/CAD (Chart 15). Chart 14Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 15Play The Cyclical Recovery In Oil Via The EUR/CAD Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "IMF Multilateral Policy issue Report: 2014 Spillover Report," IMF, dated July 29, 2014. 2 Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, Nandini Srivastava, Jigar Vakharia, and Mika Inkinen, "Flows & Liquidity," J.P.Morgan Global Asset Allocation (January 29, 2016). 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Dilemma," dated May 12, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, In addition to this abbreviated Weekly Report, I am sending you a Special Report discussing the signals being sent from recent movements in commodity prices. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog! - President Harry S. Truman There are no friends in Washington; only enemies and accomplices. Donald Trump has been finding this out the hard way over the past few months. We won't get into the merits (or lack thereof) of the latest allegations of malfeasance against the president. That's for the talking heads on the cable news shows to debate. We will stick with the markets. For now, we are not too concerned about the growing risk that President Trump will be impeached. The U.S. has experienced three impeachment crises over the past 100 years: 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). Only the Watergate crisis was accompanied by a bear market in stocks, and that was largely a function of the fact that the U.S. was going through one of the deepest recessions in the post-war era at the time (Chart 1). Things do not look nearly so grim today. After a weak start to the year, activity has rebounded in the second quarter. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% while the NY Fed's Nowcast is calling for 1.9%. The first quarter earnings season was a strong one. Our model predicts continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 2). As long as corporate earnings are rising, investors will largely overlook the drama in Washington DC. Chart 1Equities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 2Upbeat U.S. Earnings Model Moreover, we are not convinced that the litany of scandals afflicting the Trump administration will derail large parts of Trump's market-friendly policy agenda. Trump desperately needs a win, and tax reform and deregulation are two key areas where the president and congressional Republicans see eye to eye. We still think that there is a good chance that the contours of an agreement to substantially cut taxes will take shape by the end of the year. The prospect of such a deal should be enough to buoy investor sentiment. Thus, while equities are likely to remain under pressure in the near term, the outlook for the next 9-to-12 months is still reasonably good.1 Our worries are more focused on what happens as next summer approaches. As we discussed last week, U.S. growth may begin to stall out in late-2018 as the economy runs out of spare capacity and the impact of Fed rate hikes becomes more apparent. Politics are also likely to turn even more volatile. A simple majority vote in the House of Representatives is all it takes to impeach a sitting president. There aren't enough votes in the House right now, but there could be if the Democrats make a strong showing in the November 2018 midterm elections - something that current polls suggest is quite likely (Chart 3). If the Democrats end up winning the House, Marko Papic, our chief geopolitical strategist, believes that it is nearly 100% certain that they will vote to begin impeachment proceedings.2 Chart 3Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Chart 4The GOP Base Still Supports Trump The good news for Trump is that even then, it would take a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to oust him from office. Realistically, this cannot happen without significant Republican support. The bad news is that there are plenty of Republican senators who would be more than happy to stick a long sharp dagger into Trump's back and replace him with Mike Pence, Trump's more reliable and less drama-prone vice president. What is preventing them from doing so is the fear of a backlash from the white, working-class voters who got Trump elected. The only way this fear will go away is if the Republican base turns against Trump. So far that hasn't happened: Trump still commands the support of 84% of Republican voters (Chart 4). The risk, however, is that his base will desert him as the administration goes from one scandal to the next. Trump knows this, which is why come next year, he is likely to dial up his populist rhetoric. And unlike in the past, confident promises will not be enough. Trump's voters will be looking for concrete actions on hot-button issues like trade and immigration. At a time when growth is likely be slowing of its own accord, the specter of such measures could be enough to pull the rug out from risk assets. 1 We are currently short the S&P 500 as a tactical hedge, reflecting the bearish near-term signals being sent by our Stock Market Timing model. Cyclically, however, the model still points to slightly above-average returns for U.S. stocks. For further details, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Stock Market Timing Model," dated May 5, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The political theater in Washington has caused the last inning of the dollar correction to materialize. The U.S. economy remains at full employment, growth will stay above trend, and the Fed will be capable of hiking rates by more than the 66 basis points priced into the OIS curve over the next 24 months. It is time to buy the DXY. Investors are too optimistic on the euro and too negative on the CAD, short EUR/CAD as a tactical bet. The Swedish economy continues to improve. Yet, the SEK has limited upside as the Riksbank continues to find excuses to justify its dovishness. The downside for EUR/SEK is limited to 9.3. Feature Chart I-1Trump Rally Is Gone Four weeks ago, we wrote that the U.S. dollar correction was entering its last inning and recommended investors should wait a few more weeks before betting on renewed dollar strength.1 We think the time to bet on this rebound is now. To begin with, the dollar index has now erased all the gains accumulated since Trump's electoral victory, suggesting that all the hope of fiscal stimulus, deregulation, and tax cuts have now been priced out of the greenback (Chart I-1). In fact, at this point in time we think too many risks have been priced into the dollar. For one, the market is overemphasizing the likelihood of a Trump impeachment. While our Geopolitical Strategy group does think the likelihood of an impeachment procedure is near 100% if the democrats win the House in 2018, the likelihood remains much lower in 2017.2 Simply put, Trump remains a very popular president among republican voters (Chart I-2). Most problematic for many republicans that would like to see Trump out of office, is that his popularity is particularly strong among the "Tea Party" districts and voters (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Trump Still Popular With Republicans Chart I-3Trump Is Popular In Tea Party Territory Second, the chance that tax cuts are part of the upcoming budget negations is high. Tax cuts are espoused by the entire GOP caucus. Additionally, Republicans know that in order to avoid losing the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both, they have to do something popular with voters. Tax cuts definitely fit the bill. This simple political assessment points toward a likely passage of stimulus in the coming quarters despite Trump's personal woes. Finally, if Trump were to be stabbed in the back by the GOP establishment, what would the impact be on the dollar? Would the U.S. default? No. Would the economy enter a recession? No. Would the Fed become dovish? Neither. If anything, a potential removal of Trump from the oval office reduces the risk that he appoints a super-dove at the helm of the Fed, a risk that would have been very negative for our positive dollar cyclical stance. Regarding the economics behind the dollar rally, our positive cyclical stance on the USD predates the election of Trump, and in fact relied on the underlying shifts in the U.S. economy.3 These dynamics are still intact: While wage growth remains anemic, this partly reflects the fact that the long-term determinant of wage growth, productivity growth, is low. When this is taken into account, productivity-adjusted wage growth is in line with levels that in the past have prompted the Fed to tighten policy in order to combat potential inflationary dynamics (Chart I-4). Nonetheless, the risk is that wages begin accelerating going forward. The labor market is at full employment, with the U-3 unemployment rate standing 0.3 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of the neutral unemployment rate. Additionally, hidden labor market slack has also greatly dissipated (Chart I-5), with the U-6 unemployment rate, the number of workers in part-time jobs for economic reasons, and the amount of workers outside of the labor force but that would still like to have a job if economic conditions warranted it all back to levels where historically wage growth has gained momentum. Chart I-4Without Productivity Gains, Current Wage##br## Growth Is Enough For A Tighter Fed Chart I-5U.S. Labor Market##br## Is Tight Moreover, the outlook for consumption remains sturdy. Overall household income growth remains supported by elevated levels of job creation, and our indicator for real household disposable income growth continues to point up. Additionally, Federal income tax withholdings are accelerating, a sign of more robust consumption to come (Chart I-6). With consumer confidence at 17-year highs, positive income developments are likely to be translated into consumption. The outlook for capex is also bright. CEO confidence and capex intentions have all rebounded sharply, moves whose genesis predate Trump's election (Chart I-7). Moreover, elements are in place for these positive feelings to be catalyzed into actual investment. On the back of rebounding revenue growth, thanks to nominal GDP growth exiting levels historically associated with recessions, profit growth will receive a fillip, which should boost capex in the current context (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Income Tax Receipts Points ##br##To Healthy Consumption Chart I-7Capex Intentions Point ##br##To Higher Growth Chart I-8Revenue Growth Exiting ##br##Recessionary Levels Finally, when all major indicators are aggregated, real GDP growth looks set to accelerate. BCA's Beige Book diffusion index, based on the distribution of positive and negative mentions about the state of the economy in the Fed's Beige Book, is pointing to an acceleration in activity (Chart I-9). This suggests that the collapse in U.S. economic surprises may be toward its tail end. With this in mind, we continue to expect the Fed to increase rates more than the 66 basis points currently anticipated in the OIS curve over the next two years, as such, this supports our bullish stance on the dollar. In terms of tactical developments, the recent selloff has brought the DXY toward the levels congruent with the end of the correction.4 Additionally, based on our Intermediate-term timing model, the USD is now cheap enough to justify taking a long bet on the currency. The deeply oversold levels reached by our Intermediate-term momentum oscillator supports this message (Chart I-10). Finally, the Swedish Krona seems to be confirming these signposts. USD/SEK has historically displayed one of the strongest betas to the trade-weighted dollar's movements. The fact that this pair has not been able to break down below a long-term upward slopping trend line put in place since 2014, and that it also managed to stay above its 2015 peaks, gives us more confidence that the dollar correction is likely to have run its course (Chart I-11). Chart I-9BCA's Beige Book Monitor ##br##Improves Growth Will Strengthen Chart I-10Dollar Is ##br##Oversold Chart I-11USD/SEK Giving A Hopeful##br## Signal For DXY Bottom Line: The dollar has taken a beating in the wake of the scandals emerging out of the White House. In our view, these developments were only the catalyst that crystalized the last leg of the USD correction that begun in late 2016/early 2017. Ultimately, the bull case for the dollar predates Trump and rests on the dissipating slack in the U.S. economy. These developments are intact, even with Trump's fiascos in the foreground. Tactically, the dollar is now cheap enough and oversold enough to justify investors buy the DXY again. We are opening a long DXY trade this week. We remain long the dollar against most commodity currencies and EM currencies. The yen may continue to benefit if the budding weaknesses in the EM space gather further momentum. EUR/CAD Is A Short At this juncture, it would be natural for us to begin shorting the EUR against the USD. In fact, we believe the recent spike in the EUR has created a good shorting opportunity against the European currency. While we worry investors are becoming too pessimistic on the U.S., we believe investors are too optimistic regarding the capacity of the ECB to increase rates. Investors moved away from deep short positions on the euro and are now net long this currency. Also, while in July 2016 investors expected the first ECB rate hike to materialize in more than five years' time, they are now expecting the first repo rate hike to happen in just 24 months (Chart I-12). This looks premature. For comparison's sake, in the U.S. we are only seeing the early signs of labor market tightness, despite the last recession ending in the summer of 2009. Europe was victim to a double-dip recession, the last leg of which ended in 2013. This decreases the likelihood of Europe being at full employment today. More concretely, there remains plenty of hidden labor market slack in the euro area. In Europe, the main form of slack exists among workers hired under contracts, contracts that do not offer the same level of benefits and protections as regular employment. The euro area increasingly has a dual labor market, a condition that has weighed on wage growth for more than two decades in Japan. Today, as a result of such dynamics, the level of labor underutilization in Europe is still very elevated, which will continue to limit wage growth going forward (Chart I-13). Hence, core inflation dynamics in Europe are likely to prove disappointing and they will keep the ECB on a more dovish path than investors currently appreciate. Chart I-12Investors Too Optimistic On The ECB Chart I-13Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High For now we are electing to profit from this view by tactically shorting the euro against the CAD. We do believe there are problems in Canada, a topic we discussed a few weeks ago.5 But at this juncture, these worries seem well digested by markets. The Home Capital Group debacle has been front page news for weeks, but the aggregate banking sector remains strong, especially as loses on the mortgage holdings of Canadian banks will ultimately be passed on to the government through the insurance provided by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Additionally, in the wake of the deepening trade dispute on softwood lumber, the fears of a disintegration of NAFTA have hit Canada especially violently, with the CAD falling 16% against the peso since January 2017. Chart I-14EUR/CAD Is Toppy Tactically, the pieces are falling into place to favor the CAD over the EUR. Our Commodity and Energy group remains positive on the outlook for oil prices. The continuation of the output controls by OPEC and Russia remains binding as oil producers want to further curtail elevated oil inventories. Therefore, oil prices have little downside and may even experience further upside, helping the CAD in the process. Additionally, investor positioning is very skewed. Investors are massively short the CAD, especially when compared to the euro, which historically has provided a signal to short EUR/CAD (Chart I-14). This is re-enforced by our Intermediate-term technical indicator which shows EUR/CAD as massively overbought. Shorter-term momentum measures such as the RSI or the MACD have also been forming negative divergences with actual prices in recent days. Bottom Line: The euro is likely to suffer if the USD correction is indeed finishing. Hidden labor market slack remains a much deeper problem in Europe than in the U.S. and will limit the capacity of the ECB to increase rates in the next two years, as investors are currently expecting. For now, we are electing to short the euro against the CAD instead of against the USD. The Canadian dollar is oversold and oil prices have limited downside from here as supply adjustments remain positive. Moreover, investors are at record shorts on the CAD, especially when compared to the euro. Sweden Is Strong, But The Riksbank Still Haunts The SEK The long-term outlook for both Sweden and the Swedish krona remain bright but the ultra-dovish stance of the Riksbank remains a potent short-term hurdle. To begin with, the SEK offers great value. Not only is it trading at 24% and 8% discounts to its PPP fair value against the USD and the EUR, respectively, but the trade-weight SEK is also trading at a near one-sigma discount against our long-term fair value models (Chart I-15). Chart I-15SEK Is Cheap... But Is It Enough? Additionally, Sweden's net international investment position has moved back in positive territory in 2014, and now stands 16.4% of GDP (Chart I-16). This is not only a reflection of the weakness in the SEK since 2014, but is first and foremost the end-result of more than two decades of accumulated current account surpluses. This development is crucial. Not only does the positive income balance generated by assets in excess of international liabilities put a floor under the current account; historically, currencies with positive and growing net international investment positions tend to exhibit an upward bias. In terms of economic developments, employment growth in Sweden remains steady. Unemployment has been in a protracted downtrend, falling 2.9 percentage points since 2008 (Chart I-17). Yet, despite being well into full employment territory, wage growth has been absent. To a large degree, this reflects entrenched deflationary pressures in the Swedish economy. However, deflationary forces are abating. Chart I-16A Long-Term Driver Pointing North Chart I-17Swedish Labor Market At Full Employment To begin with, Sweden's output gap has recently entered positive territory, which historically has been a reliable indicator of inflationary pressures in this country (Chart I-18). Also, monetary aggregates, M1 in particular, continue to point toward higher inflation in Sweden. This means that with the employment market being at full capacity, the conditions for higher inflation in Sweden are emerging. Our expectation of an upcoming upturn in the Swedish credit impulse - which until now has been contracting and exerting deflationary forces on the economy - reinforces confidence in our inflation view. Credit growth tends to lag industrial activity, but our industrial production model for Sweden is perking up. Improving industrial variables suggest that credit will move from depressing demand back to supporting demand, further rekindling inflationary forces (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Swedish Inflation Is Set To Pick Up Chart I-19Swedish Credit Impulse Will Rebound With this positive backdrop for prices, should investors buy the SEK right now? The Riksbank continues to represent a great hurdle for SEK bulls. The Swedish central bank has one of the strongest dovish biases amongst global monetary guardians. Against expectations, it recently increased the duration of its asset purchase program, giving markets a strong signal that it is unlikely to increase rates soon. This means that the Riksbank is unlikely to tighten policy until it sees the "whites of inflation's eyes". While we are moving in the right direction, we are not there yet. Officially, the Riksbank targets CPIF, which currently clocks in at 2%. Yet, the emphasis of the central bank on domestic price dynamics implies that adjustment away from dovishness will only occur when core inflation itself moves to 2% (Chart I-20). This means that gains in the SEK will be limited. To begin with, EUR/SEK does have downside, and our view that the euro is getting overextended highlights that EUR/SEK could fall toward 9.3. However, beyond this level, gains should prove limited as Sweden is a small open economy and EUR/SEK plays a big role in tightening monetary conditions for that country. As a result, any move in EUR/SEK below 9.3 is likely to be unwelcomed by the Riksbank until core inflation moves closer to 2%. Versus the USD, it will be even more difficult for the SEK to rally. Historically, the SEK has been one of the most sensitive currencies to the dollar's trend, implying that strength in DXY could be magnified in USD/SEK. In fact, the absence of breakdown in USD/SEK in the face of violent dollar selling pressures this week suggests that the SEK could be a serious casualty of a rebounding dollar. Additionally, real rate differentials continue to move in favor of the U.S. dollar, with U.S. 2-year real rates now 180 basis points above that of Sweden (Chart I-21). With the Intermediate-term technical indicator for USD/SEK now hitting oversold levels, the downside for USD/SEK is very limited, further supporting the idea that any rebound in DXY could lead to significant weaknesses in SEK. Chart I-20Core Inflation Needs To Rise Chart I-21Rates Differentials Support A Lower SEK Bottom Line: The Swedish economy has adjusted and several factors are pointing toward a pickup in core inflation in the coming quarters. However, the Riksbank has maintained a strong dovish bias. We need to see an actual pick up in core inflation itself before the central bank moves away from its dovish bias. While EUR/SEK could weaken toward 9.3, more gains for the krona against the euro will prove elusive until the Riksbank sees firmer inflation. USD/SEK is a buy at current levels. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant HaarisA@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled “The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction”, dated April 21, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled “Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment”, dated May 17, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dollar: The Great Redistributor”, dated October 7, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled “The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction”, dated April 21, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled “AUD and CAD: Risky Business”, dated March 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The past week has been quite eventful for the greenback, slipping almost 2.3%. Most of the downside is owed to markets revising down rate expectations, on the basis of weak growth numbers and political scandals. The 10-year yield dropped, gold rose, and equities fell. There was also a large sell-off in EM currencies and a sharp appreciation in the yen. Furthermore, the soft patch in U.S. data continued as housing starts and building permits came in especially weak in April: 1.172 million and 1.229 million respectively, both underperforming consensus. Nevertheless, markets calmed after the release of stronger employment numbers with initial and continuing jobless claims beating expectations. The upswing in the Philly Fed index also helped revive sentiment. The dollar picked up Thursday morning following these releases. Interestingly, the DXY is at pre-election levels, which suggests that the dollar is nearing its bottom. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro has enjoyed significant upside as a result of Macron's victory and the dollar's drubbing. Weak data in the U.S. caused markets to revise growth expectations, pressuring the dollar downwards and the euro up. Further lifting the euro were comments by ECB President Mario Draghi, who highlighted that growth in the euro area is performing well. However, he also reiterated that "it is too early to declare success". These forces have lifted the euro to expensive levels on a tactical basis, suggesting the path of least resistance is most likely down as the ECB will find it hard to tighten policy and the dollar resumes its bull market. Data in the euro area has been mixed as of late without too much disappointment, and inflationary pressured remain unchanged. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 After coming slightly above 114, USD/JPY has plunged by more than 3%, as a result of the market pricing increasing odds that president Trump will get impeached. Although we believe that the correction of the dollar has run its course, the end of the Trump trade might have triggered the sell-off we have been expecting in emerging markets. Thus we like to play this risk off period by shorting NZD/JPY. On the data side, news have mostly been negative: Machinery orders contracted by 0.7% YoY, underperforming expectations. Consumer confidence came in lower than last month at 43.2. Bank lending grew by a measly 3% YoY underperforming expectations. However, real GDP for Q1 came in at 0.5% QoQ, beating expectations. This was dampened by the weak GDP deflator, which contracted by tk%. We continue to be yen bears on a cyclical basis, as the fed will raise rates more than the markets expects, while the BoJ will continue anchoring 10-year yields around zero. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K has been mixed: Industrial Production growth came in at 1.4%, underperforming expectations. However retail sales and retail sales ex-fuel growth came in at 4% and 4.5% respectively, both outpacing expectations. Crucially, both core and headline inflation came above expectations at 2.4% and 2.7% respectively. This surge in inflation is important as it raises the odds of a BoE hike this year, especially as the economy remains resilient. Moreover, as long term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored consumption is likely to continue to surprise as households are looking through the inflation caused by the depreciation in the pound. Overall, we continue to be positive on GBP against all other currencies but the U.S. dollar, given that the British economy will likely stay more resilient than investors are anticipating. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The RBA shed some light on the Australian economy through its most recent Minutes, highlighting that monetary policy needs to remain accommodative to support economic trends. It noted the negative hit to terms of trade as a result of Cyclone Debbie curtailing coking coal exports. China's housing market was also identified as a risk to Australia's exports and terms of trade. Nevertheless, this week the AUD was buoyant, helped by a weaker greenback. However, the factors above paint a bleak picture for the AUD's future. The very important employment figures depicted a similar trend to that of last year, with full-time employment in fact contracting while part-time employment picked up. Unemployment also declined by 0.2% to 5.7%, however, wages remain subdued. This corroborates the weaker core CPI measure of 1.5%, while the strong headline figure of 2.1% is likely to be transitory when the recent commodity-prices weakness kicks in. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The RBNZ continues to much more accommodative than warranted. The monetary policy report highlighted that the recent surge in inflation is mainly attributable to tradables, and that non-tradable inflation is bound to increase very gradually. We continue to believe that the RBNZ is understating the inflationary pressures in the economy, as core inflation is already higher than 2%. Additionally, retail sales are growing at 10-year high and nominal GDP growth has skyrocketed to 7.5%, by far the highest in the G10. Right now, the market expects the first rate hike to come in 9 months. We believe that a rate hike at this point would be the bare minimum for the RBNZ to avoid an overheating in the economy. Thus expectations have nowhere to go than up and the NZD now has considerable upside against the AUD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 USD/CAD has been somewhat weaker this past week as oil prices rebounded and the dollar fell. Oil prices are likely to see further upside as OPEC and Russia are likely to agree to another supply cut to support oil prices. Domestically, the economy is improving as unemployment is declining and PMIs are perking up. The BoC also identified the output gap to close earlier than expected in its last meeting. The almost 4% depreciation in the CAD in the past month has made the oil-based currency considerably cheap. When looking at EUR/CAD, the depreciation has been around 7.5%. With the euro now sitting in expensive territory, the ECB is unlikely to change its stance any time soon as inflation has not yet rooted itself, while peripheral economies' inflation remain weak. The CAD, however, is likely to see further upside on the back of increasing oil prices and a strengthening economy. These factors warrant a short EUR/CAD trade. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 And CAD: Risky Business -AUD March 10, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Following the election of Emmanuel Macron as the new president of France EUR/CHF skyrocketed, coming close to hitting 1.1. At this point EUR/CHF is a very attractive short, given that good news for the euro are likely to tapper now that the French election is behind us. When it comes to inflation, the ECB will likely focus on the lowest denominator, because in spite of higher inflation in some countries like Germany or Austria, inflationary pressures remain muted in most other economies. This will prevent the ECB from tightening monetary policy as fast as the market expects. Meanwhile, the possibilities that the SNB takes the floor off EUR/CHF at the end of this year or the beginning of 2018 are rising given that inflation and economic activity are slowly coming back to Switzerland. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has depreciated in the past weeks thanks to the fall in the dollar as well as rising oil prices. Additionally, the fall in inflation is slowing down, with core and headline inflation coming in at 1.7% and 2.2% respectively. Is it time to become bullish on the NOK against the U.S. dollar? We do not believe this is the case. While inflation might be close to bottoming it is unlikely to surpass the Norges Bank target in the coming years, given that inflationary pressures remain muted in Norway. Furthermore, given that USD/NOK is more sensitive to real rate differentials than oil prices, the effect of a dovish Norges Bank on USD/NOK will be much stronger than the impact of rising oil prices. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 We expect the SEK to experience limited upside in the next 3-6 months. The Greenback is bottoming and we expect USD/SEK to pick up on the back of the dollar bull market. Furthermore, EUR/SEK has limited downside as the RIksbank wants to keep monetary conditions easy. Indeed, the Swedish central bank is also planning to officially target CPIF instead of the CPI. While both of these measures are near 2%, the behavior of the Riksbank suggests that it is in fact targeting core inflation. Core inflation itself is still somewhat depressed, as consumer activity remains weak. However, we expect core inflation to pick up on the back of a higher credit impulse and money supply growth, which should help the Riksbank exit its dovish tilt later this year. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Unsurprisingly, OPEC 2.0's leadership agreed on the need to extend the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement to end-March 2018. Leaders of the coalition - the energy ministers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will recommend as much when the coalition meets next week in Vienna. Meanwhile, sequential production in U.S. shales during the first four months of the year is up just under 100k b/d, based on the EIA's latest estimates. This was led by surging Permian production. We expect shale-oil production growth to continue, and are revising our year-end 2017 light-tight-oil (LTO) production estimate for the four main shale-oil plays to 5.66mm b/d, up from our earlier assessment of 5.39mm b/d. We also are lifting our year-end 2018 estimate of shale production to 6.64mm b/d. This means December-to-December LTO production will increase ~ 1mm b/d by Dec/17 and by another ~1mm b/d by Dec/18. Energy: Overweight. As of last Thursday's close, we are long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. $45/bbl puts at -$1.16/bbl, and long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent at -$0.21/bbl. These positions were up 16.4% and 242.9%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. The physical deficit in zinc appears to be widening slightly, based on supply-demand estimates from the International Zinc Study Group. Usage totaled 2.282mm MT in Jan-Feb 2017 vs. refined production of 2.28mm MT. For 2016, usage was 13.89mm MT vs. supply of 12.67mm MT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Metal refiner Johnson Matthey expects a 790k oz. palladium deficit this year, up from a little over 160k oz. last year. Separately, the World Platinum Investment Council expects platinum supply to fall 2% this year to 7.33mm oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported corn planting stood at 71% for the week ended May 14, vs. an average of 70% over the 2012 - 16 period. We remain bearish. Feature The determination of the leaders of OPEC 2.0 to clear the storage overhang could not have been made more clear, following comments earlier this week from KSA's and Russia's energy ministers the coalition's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting agreement would be extended to end-March 2018. This is three months beyond earlier speculation the deal would be extended to year-end 2017. Chart of the WeekBalances Chart Still, when dealing with a political organization of any sort - and OPEC 2.0 is nothing if not a political entity - our bias is to assume less-than-complete compliance with production cuts, and an earlier return to pre-agreement production levels than proffered by the leadership of the coalition. Hence, in our updated balances model (Chart of the Week), in addition to assuming higher U.S. production out of the shales, we have Russian production returning to a level just below 11.30mm b/d by October 2017, up roughly 150k b/d from the 11.15mm b/d we assume they'll be producing until the end of September. We also assume Iraq's production will move up to 4.45mm b/d (up 50k b/d) beginning in January, and that Iran will be steadily, yet slowly, increasing production by 5-10k b/d per month beginning this month. The only assumption we're making for staunch compliance to the OPEC 2.0 accord after our assumed extension to year-end 2017 at next week's Vienna meeting is that KSA and its GCC allies - Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - will continue to abide by their voluntary production cuts. This group has maintained solidarity on past production-management deals, we expect them to do so again in this round. Of course, the other members of the coalition could vote against this proposal next week, and instead decide to end the production deal in June under its original conditions. Or, they could agree to extend the deal, but only until year-end 2017. Regardless of whichever policy decisions are agreed to during next week's meeting, come November, when OPEC meets again, they might tweak/change those agreements to reflect their updated outlook at that time. Given this uncertainty, we believe the assumptions we've made are realistic, but we will be monitoring conditions closely so that we can modify our view quickly. Shale Coming On Strong Part of OPEC 2.0's desire to extend its deal likely is the improvement in the performance of shale-oil producers in the U.S. In its latest Drilling Productivity Report (DPR), the EIA noted that sequential production in the first four months of the year has risen ~ 100k b/d per month in the U.S. shales. This surge was led by higher Permian production, which accounted for ~ three-quarters of the increased output (Chart 2). Interestingly, rig-weighted production per rig dropped for the first time in April 2017, but it still is high at 732 b/d, down from 735 b/d in March. We will be watching this closely to see if it is the beginning of a trend of stagnating productivity amid a rapid expansion of industry activity. The resurgence in the shales can be seen in the year-on-year (yoy) growth in total production in the seven basins the EIA tracks, which broke back above 5.0mm b/d in February and crossed into positive yoy growth in March (Chart 3). Net, we expect 2017 global supply to average 97.65mm b/d, for an increase 610k b/d this year, and for demand to average 98.3mm b/d, for an increase of 1.5mm b/d. EM demand, which we proxy using non-OECD consumption, accounts for 1.27mm b/d of this year's global demand growth, and continues to lead overall growth in oil demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Of this, China and India account for 350k and 210k b/d, respectively, of the growth in EM demand. Chart 2Permian Basin Leads##br##U.S. Shale's Resurgence Chart 3Year-On-Year LTO Production##br##Breaks Out In 1Q17 Chart 4EM Growth Continues##br##To Lead Global Demand China, India Lead EM Oil Consumption Non-OECD countries represent more than 50% of global oil consumption. Indeed, within the ~1.6mm b/d global oil demand growth we expect for 2017 and again in 2018, slightly more than 87% of it comes from EM economies. Table 1 below shows the average yoy growth by year for different regions - DM and EM - and countries from 2011 to 2018. Over this period, almost all of the world's oil-demand growth comes from non-OECD countries. From 2011-2018, the average p.a. demand growth for non-OECD countries is 2.79%, while for OECD countries it is only 0.12%. Table 1EM Leads Oil-Demand Growth Looking more closely at the composition of the EM economies, we see that, on average, between 2010 and 2018 Chinese oil consumption accounts for 24% of non-OECD demand, while the Indian oil consumption represents 8.3%, for a combined total of 32.37% of non-OECD average consumption. These two countries alone contributed on average to around 50% of the world oil consumption growth from 2010 to 2018. China has been the fastest-growing oil market in the world since the early 2000s. However, since 2015, when it emerged as an important growth market on the world stage, India's consumption has been increasing at a faster pace than China's. One of the reasons for this likely is the desire of the Chinese government to resume its pivot to a more service-oriented economy, which is less commodity-intensive than the export-oriented economy dominated by heavy industry. India, meanwhile, is looking to increase its manufacturing output, lifting it from the low-teens to 25% of GDP by 2022 under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Make in India" campaign. This change in the composition of global oil-demand growth is reducing demand for residual fuel oil and distillates. Indeed, IEA data continues to show a steady decline in yoy consumption for these two types of fuel in China, with residual fuel oil consumption down 26.5% yoy in 2016, and gasoil and diesel (distillates) consumption down close to 3% yoy. By contrast, gasoline consumption, is up more than 8% yoy along with jet fuel and kerosene. LPG demand (propane and butane, along with other light ends) and ethane demand (a petrochemical feedstock) is surging, up 24% in 2016, according to the IEA. In relative terms, China will remain the main driver of global oil consumption. At ~ 12.5mm b/d, China's oil demand is close to three times as high than India's. However, India likely will surpass China in terms of its contribution to global oil demand growth in coming years. A combination of structural and policy-driven factors points toward a possible sustainable growth path for Indian oil consumption for the coming years (oil consumption per capita is increasing, as is vehicle usage, particularly motorcycles (Chart 5); and, the government's desire to increase the share of the manufacturing to 25% of GDP by 2022 will boost oil demand growth as well). Chart 5India Passenger Car Sales Are Soaring Recent studies assessing the "take-off" of an economy look at its per capita oil consumption in transportation, in particular, given that this sector accounts for more than half of the world's oil consumption (63% according to IEA Energy Statistics 2014). The theory boils down to the following: As income grows, a larger share of the population becomes vehicle owners. This is referred to as the "motorization" of an economy. In India, the transportation sector represents around 40% of total oil consumption.1 According to Sen and Sen (2016), the level of vehicle-ownership per capita is still low in India compared to other economies that have experienced similar take-offs. The government's targeted increase in manufacturing as a share of GDP to 25% under the "Make In India" program (from a current level of ~ 15%) would, according to the Sen and Sen (2016) formulation, lead to an increase in oil consumption. The "Make in India" campaign was launched in 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and aims to transform the country's manufacturing sector into a powerhouse for growth and employment. Other key objectives of this campaign include a target of 12-14% annual growth in the manufacturing sector, and the creation of 100 million new jobs by 2020 in the sector.2 In 2017Q1, India's liquid fuels consumption declined by 3% yoy. This decline was, for the most part, caused by the government's "demonetization" program, which was designed to streamline the economy and reduce rampant black-market transactions. The government chose to invalidate the 500- and the 1,000-rupee banknotes, the most-used currency denominations in the economy (around 86% of the total value of currency in circulation). This represented a huge shock to the average citizen, since it limited the purchasing power of a large part of the consumer economy for an extended period of time and impacted India's overall economic activity. Recent data show Indian oil and liquids consumption up 3% in April (yoy), and its money supply is almost back to its pre-demonetization levels, according to the EIA. This suggests economic activity and liquid-fuel consumption will get back to their previous levels. Bottom Line: We believe OPEC 2.0's deal will be extended at next week's Vienna meeting to March 2018. However, after September, we are expecting compliance to fall off meaningfully, leaving KSA and its allies as the only producers adhering to their voluntary cuts past year-end 2017. Even so, we expect the storage overhang to be worked off - mostly this year - but also into next. Even though U.S. shale production is surprising on the upside, the commitment of a majority of OPEC 2.0 to production cutbacks at least through September of this year will force the storage overhang to draw down by year end. KSA and its core allies will maintain production discipline to March 2018, which will keep storage from refilling too quickly during the seasonally weak consumption period in the first quarter next year. We continue to expect oil forward curves to backwardate by December 2017, and remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent. In addition, we remain long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts, expecting prices to rally toward $60/bbl by the time Brent delivers in December. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant Commodity & Energy Strategy hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Sen, Amrita; Anupama Sen (2016), "India's Oil Demand: On the Verge of 'Take-Off'?". Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 2 Some of the recent policies to enhance the manufacturing growth include: Government subsidies of up to 25% for specific manufacturing sub-sectors; area-based incentives to increase the manufacturing development in key regions; allowances for companies that invest a predetermined amount in new plant and machinery; deductions for additional wages paid to new regular employees; deductions for R&D expenditures; and other incentives aimed at promoting the manufacturing sector and improving the India's ease of doing business to attract foreign direct investments. Please see http://www.makeinindia.com/article/-/v/direct-foreign-investment-towards-india-s-growth. 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