Geopolitics

Highlights Markets will survive late spring and summer unscathed; Macron will win the French election; Trump's agenda is not going down in flames; U.K. snap polls support our sanguine view on Brexit; Fade the rally in Treasuries and bet against unwinding of Trump reflation; Stay tactically long EUR/USD, long the pound, and long French industrials vs. German. Feature One of the oldest adages of Wall Street is to "sell in May and go away." Data reinforce the conventional wisdom, with a strategy of staying on the sidelines during the summer months clearly outperforming the alternative of staying long every month (Chart 1). Chart 1Sell In May And Go Away Should investors adopt the same approach in 2017? Certainly the risks are skewed to the downside due to investor complacency and a busy political schedule: Complacency: Investor complacency has been spectacularly elevated ahead of Q2 this year. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, who has been flagging warning signs since early February, lists four measures of complacency that peaked in April (Chart 2).1 The SKEW index, controlled for by the VIX, rose above 12 early in April, warning that at least a tactical pullback is at hand. The Yale U.S. one year institutional confidence index hit an all-time high of 98.68% in February. Similarly, the Minneapolis Fed's market-based probability of a 20%+ correction in the S&P 500 dropped to below 10%, a level last seen during the peak of the previous bull market in 2007 (bottom panel).2 Political Schedule: April and May have an unusually high number of high-profile deadlines, meetings, and elections packed into a tight space: April 26: U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to announce key details of his long-awaited tax reform plan; April 28: The U.S. government's stopgap funding measure, the continuing resolution, will expire - leading to a government shutdown if no replacement is passed; April 29: The EU Council will hold its "Brexit Summit" to either approve, amend, or reject Council President Donald Tusk's proposed negotiation guidelines;3 May 7: The second round of the French presidential election will be held; May 9: An extraordinary presidential election will take place in South Korea; Mid-May: U.S. President Donald Trump will present his full budget proposal, including tax plans, spending cuts, and growth projections; May 19: Iran holds its presidential election; May 25: The OPEC meeting in Vienna will determine whether to extend the current production-cut agreement. In this Weekly Report, we focus on the three most immediate risks to the markets: the second-round of French presidential election, U.S. domestic politics, and the upcoming election in the U.K. We will also address downside risk to oil prices in an upcoming joint report, to publish tomorrow, with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy. Our conclusion is that while risks are indeed skewed to the downside by the mere combination of investor complacency and volume of potential tail-risks, the market will likely emerge from the summer doldrums unscathed. As such, any market downturns are an opportunity to buy on dips. As we recently warned, however, the real risks will emerge in 2018.4 France: Fin? Centrist Emmanuel Macron has won the first round of the French presidential election with a narrow victory over nationalist Marine Le Pen (Table 1). As expected, the two will now contest the second round on May 7. France will subsequently hold a two-round legislative election on June 11 and 18. Chart 2Complacency At A Peak Table 1France: First-Round Election Results Investors learned three things from the first round of the French presidential election: Polls are right: Repeat after us: polls are not wrong, pundits are.5 Neither the Brexit referendum nor the U.S. presidential election came as a huge surprise to those who read polls objectively. In both cases, the outcome was inside the margin of error. Hopefully, the first round of the French presidential election will set aside the notion that all polls are useless and therefore investors are better off interpreting chicken entrails for election forecasting. In fact, polls in France have not significantly underestimated Marine Le Pen's nationalist party - Front National - since the 2002 election (Chart 3). Le Pen has no momentum: Le Pen consistently polled in the high 20s throughout late 2016 and 2017, but ended with only 21.43% of the vote on April 23 (Chart 4). In fact, she only narrowly improved on her 2012 performance of 17.9%, which is astounding considering everything that has happened in France since then (terrorist attacks in particular). Macron has meanwhile nearly doubled his polling from late 2016. French voters are angry: Protest and anti-establishment candidates came away with 49.62% of the vote (Chart 5). Chart 3FN Rarely Outperforms Its Polling Chart 4Le Pen's Momentum Is Gone Chart 5French Voters Are Angry... What to make of these three lessons? First, if lessons A and B are correct, then Le Pen is toast on May 7 (Chart 6).6 According to a poll conducted from April 17 to 21, Le Pen will struggle to get any voters from Mélenchon and Socialist candidate Benoît Hamon (Chart 7). This should not be surprising to anyone who knows France and its history: the left and the right just do not get along. We construct a "Le Pen best case scenario" out of the data by giving her all the voters who said they would abstain in the second round. Let's say that they were lying and are secret Le Pen supporters. She still loses (Chart 8)! Chart 6...But Not That Angry Chart 7Most Voters Will Swing To Macron Chart 8The No-Shows Can't Win It For Le Pen But surely a major terrorist attack could turn it around for Le Pen, right? Wrong. Macron is not pro-terrorist. Why would the French turn to a Russian-financed nationalist with no clear plan on how to prevent terrorism or stop refugee flows into Europe other than to close French borders?7 (And that description is not fake news!)8 They wouldn't. And there is empirical evidence to prove that French voters see through Le Pen's empty rhetoric. We highly recommend our clients read our February report titled "The French Revolution" where we conducted a careful study of the 2015 December regional elections.9 These elections occurred only 23 days following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and at the height of that year's migration crisis. It was as if the fates conspired with Le Pen's Front National (FN) to create a perfect storm. And yet the election was a crushing loss for the nationalists who came away with nothing in the second round. Chart 9French Public Supports The EU And Euro But hold on a minute. Are the French really about to elect a former investment banker for president even though 50% of them are "angry," as suggested by our lesson C? Well, yes. The "anger" is complicated. Mélenchon received a lot of the disgruntled Socialist Party voters who jumped the Hamon ship after it sunk during the latter's woefully uninspiring debate performances. These are not hard-core Euroskeptic voters. In fact, both Mélenchon and Le Pen moderated their Euroskepticism in the run up to this election to broaden their base of support. Le Pen promised that she would abide by the results of a referendum on the EU even if it went against her will, as polls currently suggest it would (Chart 9). And Mélenchon suggested that exiting the EU would only be his "Plan B," in case his plan to renegotiate the Treaty of the EU failed. What should investors expect of a Macron presidency? While the "French Thatcherite" François Fillon may have been more welcome to the markets than Macron, we think that a combination of President Macron and right-leaning National Assembly could accomplish some reforms. Polling for the legislative elections in June is scarce, but Le Pen's party is highly unlikely to outperform Le Pen herself. Judging by the December 2015 regional elections and Fillon's pre-scandal polling, the center-right Les Républicains are likely to win at least a plurality of seats in the legislative elections. Several prominent center right figures have already come out in support of Macron, perhaps to throw their name in the ring for the next prime minister.10 This is highly positive for the markets as it means that French economic policy will be run by the center right, with an ultra-Europhile as president. Bottom Line: Nothing is over until it is over. Le Pen obviously still has a chance to win given that she is one of the two people running in the French election. However, given current polling, Macron is highly likely to become the next president of France. Hold tactical long EUR/USD and strategic long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities. But start thinking about closing long euro positions. The U.S.: From Math To Magic There are three reasons for global investors to worry about U.S. politics at the moment: Government shutdown: The U.S. government will face a shutdown on April 28 if the continuing resolution (CR) is not extended (via another CR) or if an omnibus funding bill is not passed. The risk for investors is that Senate Democrats could filibuster an omnibus bill that contains a conservative "poison pill" such as funding the wall on the border with Mexico or defunding Planned Parenthood. This would result in a partial government shutdown. Our view is that there is no time to find a long-term solution and the Republicans will have to extend current spending levels via short-term CRs, possibly until the end of the fiscal year on October 1. Given that the government has already been funded for half of the current fiscal year via short-term CRs, it may be the only way that Republicans can avoid a showdown with Democrats in the Senate. Obamacare repeal and replacement: The Senate and the House passed a budget resolution on January 13 that included "reconciliation instructions" allowing for the repeal of Obamacare in an eventual reconciliation bill.11 The reconciliation procedure allows measures that impact government spending and revenue - budgetary matters - to pass through Congress with a simple majority, i.e. without the need for 60 votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate.12 These instructions are believed to "expire" at the end of May or thereabouts, giving Republicans one more month to replace Obamacare without causing greater traffic jams down the road.13 There are two hurdles to this process. First, the Tea Party-linked "Freedom Caucus" opposed the original Obamacare proposal and needs to be placated with provisions that may put off centrist Republicans in the Senate. Second, both the original Paul Ryan plan and the soon-to-be-revealed alternative are likely to be challenged by the Democrats under the reconciliation rules.14 Trump at first appeared willing to walk away from repealing Obamacare - which seemed to make sense given that the bill he endorsed imposes a roughly $700 billion burden on U.S. households (Chart 10). However, he has since decided that he needs the bill's roughly $320 billion in savings over ten years in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts he has promised.15 Tax reform: Also coming into focus in April and May is tax reform. The White House is set to release key tax-reform details as we go to publication. Further, Trump has to deliver his full FY2018 budget in mid-May. Unlike the budget Trump released in mid-March, the May edition will include the tax proposals, measures on "mandatory" or entitlement spending, and growth projections. Concurrently, Congress has to start working on its budget resolution for FY2018, which, as mentioned, will enable using reconciliation to pass the tax bill with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. Again, the Freedom Caucus is a potential hurdle. Investors fear they will demand that any tax bill be strictly revenue neutral and thus foul up the legislative process. Chart 10Obamacare Repeal Hits Households Confused yet? You are not alone! We have noticed from client meetings and the financial media a growing obsession with details of upcoming reforms and the arcane congressional rules that will govern the legislative process. This is a mistake. Investors should step back and focus on the big picture: Trump is an economic populist who wants to see a higher rate of nominal GDP growth; Republicans are a party that favors tax cuts; Legislative rules are meant to be broken. As such, the key question is whether President Trump can bend the will of the Freedom Caucus, which plays the role of the antagonist in his efforts to clear all three hurdles listed above. We have no reason to believe that he cannot. In fact, all signs are pointing to the Freedom Caucus playing ball with the White House: Rhetoric has changed: Mark Meadows (R- North Carolina), Chairman of the Freedom Caucus, has confirmed that he is not demanding revenue-neutral tax reform plan and that he is open to a compromise on Obamacare. The Freedom Caucus is reportedly getting closer to accepting a health-care bill that passes the deadly issues to the states, allowing state legislatures to make their own decision on whether to remove the most popular regulatory requirements of Obamacare. Politically, this is a brilliant move. It allows both the Tea Party and moderate Republicans to declare victory by claiming that they upheld "state rights" - a core conservative principle - while giving conservative governors and state legislatures the option of eroding Obamacare at a state level. Moderates in the Senate, the theory goes, will not have to shoot down the new health bill for fear of a popular backlash since they presumably reside in states that will opt to keep the Obamacare measures in question (essential health benefits, community ratings, etc). The bill is by no means guaranteed to pass, but the point is that the Freedom Caucus has changed its tune after having been blamed for failing to repeal Obamacare, when repeal was one of the main reasons they were elected in the first place. Trump retains political capital: President Trump's polling with Republican voters has improved since the strike against Syria (Chart 11). He retains political capital with GOP voters and is therefore still a threat to the Freedom Caucus if he should campaign against them in the 2018 midterm primaries. The electoral threat is real: The Tea Party-favored candidate in Georgia's special election on June 20, Bob Gray, came in third place with just over 10% of the vote.16 Notably, a Trump-linked super PAC fielded campaign ads against Gray, helping propel the moderate candidate - Karen Handel - to the run-off against the Democratic challenger. While the media has obsessed about the surprise performance by Jon Ossoff, the first Democrat to make the district competitive since 1978, we are certain that House Freedom Caucus members have taken notice of Gray's fate. The message from the White House is clear: don't mess with Donald Trump. Trump will use carrots as well as sticks with the Freedom Caucus. To that end, we wish to remind our clients of "dynamic scoring," the macroeconomic modeling tool based on the work of economist Arthur Laffer (of the "Laffer curve" fame). The idea is that the headline government revenue loss of tax cuts fails to take into account the growth-generating consequences ("macroeconomic feedback") of the cuts, consequences that actually add to revenues. In other words, "tax cuts pay for themselves." Republican legislators have been using dynamic scoring to justify deficit-busting tax cuts for decades. And there is some truth to their claim that tax cuts generate revenue. For instance, while it is true that President Bush's White house vastly overestimated the U.S.'s long-term revenue when it oversaw major cuts in 2001-3, nevertheless revenues did ultimately go up over the ten-year period - contrary to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates at the time (Chart 12). Various studies suggest that Republicans could use a variety of growth models to write off about 10% of the cost of their tax cuts (Chart 13). And we are being conservative in those numbers. Chart 11Trump In Line With##br## GOP Predecessors Chart 12Bush Was Right,##br## CBO Was Wrong! Chart 13Dynamic Scoring Will Offset About 10% ##br##Of Revenues Lost To Tax Cuts Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was anything but conservative when he explicitly told investors to expect a tax reform plan paid for largely by dynamic scoring. Speaking on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank spring meetings in Washington, Mnuchin said, Some of the lowering in (tax) rates is going to be offset by less deductions and simpler taxes, but the majority of it will be made up by what we believe is fundamentally growth and dynamic scoring. We have been arguing since November that investors should expect tax cuts that rely on dynamic scoring to justify their deficit-busting effects.17 Mnuchin's comments, after several hints from other legislators, confirm that this is indeed the plan. For the Freedom Caucus, dynamic scoring provides a defense against the accusation that their tax cuts increase the budget deficit. That said, data clearly shows that voters care less about deficits - their concerns have subsided with the deficits themselves (Chart 14).18 It remains to be seen whether Trump's team expects for dynamic scoring to do all the heavy lifting in justifying tax cuts or whether real tax reforms are still on the agenda. Even assuming Trump rejects the House GOP's border adjustment tax (which is apparently hanging onto life by a thread), he can offset revenue losses by repatriating companies' foreign earnings, moderating tax cuts for high-income earners, and closing loopholes. These offsets would add to whatever he saves from repealing Obamacare and cutting regulations.19 Chart 14Americans Not So Worried About Deficits Now Chart 15Trump Lags Average Predecessor Ultimately, Republicans of all stripes know that if they fail to produce some legislative "wins" then they will be left with nothing to campaign on in the midterm elections except for their affiliation with President Trump's very poor nationwide approval rating (Chart 15). The current polling foreshadows a 36-seat slaughter in the upcoming midterm elections for the Republicans in the House (Chart 16). This would give Democrats a majority. Several clients have asked us if this makes tax reform less likely. We do not think so. It simply means that Republicans have 18 months to pass their most treasured policies - and much less time if they want the economic growth spurt to help them get reelected. They may not have an opportunity like this for decades. Bottom Line: Investors should step back and focus on the big picture: Trump remains popular with GOP voters, the Freedom Caucus understands this threat, and - to quote Pink Floyd - magic makes the world go round. Investors should fade the rally in Treasurys, as our colleague Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy recently recommended. We are sticking with our "Trump reflation" 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener and initiating a recommendation that clients go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 17).20 Chart 16Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Chart 17Short Jan '18 Fed Funds Futures Brexit: Early Elections Reinforce Our GBP Call British Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold early elections vindicates our view that the political risks of Brexit peaked - and GBP bottomed - in mid-January when May declared that her country would leave the EU's common market (Chart 18).21 At that time, May frontloaded the worst expectations of negotiations while simultaneously removing the most contentious issue: common market access. With the U.K. decisively "out," i.e. not trying to take the EU's market while rejecting its people, the EU had less of a reason to make an example of the U.K. to other countries whose Euroskeptics might think they could pick and choose what they want from the bloc. Now May and the Tories are on track for a big electoral win that will not only confirm her government's strategy but also give her more maneuverability to handle the negotiations: May's Personal Mandate: May is a "takeover" prime minister - she emerged as leader in the party reshuffle after her predecessor David Cameron's resignation following the "Leave" outcome of the referendum. Takeover prime ministers are historically weaker than "elected" prime ministers and do not last as long in office - on average they rule for 3.3 years, as opposed to six for their elected peers (Chart 19). In other words, May's position was tenuous. This was especially likely to be the case as the country entered the rocky period of formal exit in 2019 and general elections in 2020. Her struggles in turn could have threatened the Brexit deal or her party's control. At the same time, May has received a bigger "bounce" in popular opinion after assuming office than other takeover prime ministers have done (Chart 20), partly as a result of the rally-around-the-flag effect after the referendum shock. Thus, it was eminently sensible to seek public approval of her leadership at this time. Chart 18GBP Bottomed When U.K. ##br##Forswore Common Market Chart 19Theresa May Faced##br## A Short Tenure Chart 20May Received ##br##A Brexit Boost A Thin Majority: The Conservative Party has also rallied post-referendum, especially in contrast with the divided Labour Party, under Jeremy Corbyn, that will hit its lowest point since 1918 if it performs according to current polling (Chart 21). Yet the government has a thin majority in parliament of only 17 seats, among the thinnest majorities in recent decades (Chart 22). This is a liability heading into the parliamentary vote on the final exit deal with the EU in 2019, raising the menace of a "Brexit cliff" in which the U.K.'s two-year negotiating period could expire without any EU deal at all. That would be an unmitigated disaster. With a greater majority, May will be able to cow the other parties further and whip her own party's backbenchers into shape. There was also a festering scandal about the Conservative Party's 2015 fundraising that could trigger a number of by-elections jeopardizing the thin majority.22 2022 is better than 2020: The Tories also faced the prospect of running for re-election in 2020, one year after Brexit actually occurs. By that time negative economic effects (not to mention any cyclical downturn) are more likely to be felt by the public than today. The Tories would also have to face the public immediately after any embarrassing compromises in the EU negotiations. Although Labour is currently in free fall - as illustrated by the astounding loss to the Tories in the by-election in Copeland in February23 - the next two years provide opportunities for revival. The negotiations may be messy, the economy will suffer as reality sets in,24 and the union itself may come under threat from a second Scottish referendum.25 Hence the new election timeline will suit the Tories better than the old, giving them till 2022 to cement Brexit itself and address some of the effects of the aftermath before facing voters. Chart 21Labour In The Doldrums Chart 22Tories Want A Bigger Majority To Manage Brexit Few doubt that May's timing is impeccable. There can be backlash from election opportunism and voter fatigue, but May's popular approval and the national atmosphere do not suggest it will be significant. Pollsters project from current opinion polls that she will secure a 100-seat majority or greater, and since 1997 party-preference polling has become more, not less, predictive of parliamentary seats after elections. Moreover our extremely conservative estimate based exclusively on opportunities that the Tories have to snatch seats from rivals at odds with the Brexit referendum suggests that they cannot do worse than to add 11 seats to their majority (Table 2). Table 2Minimal Scenario Gives Tories 11 New Seats For Their Majority In turn, a bigger majority more securely linked to Theresa May's leadership will bring greater maneuverability in the EU talks and assurance that she can get her final deal through parliament - even if it is an ugly one. How do the elections affect the EU? Contrary to the posturing on both sides, the early election will send a further electoral confirmation to the EU that the U.K. is dead-set on leaving and that the EU cannot deliberately negotiate a bad deal in hopes that the U.K. will change its mind. It could hardly hope to overturn domestic politics and elicit a reversal on Brexit after a third national electoral outcome in favor of leaving the union. Yet the EU saw the writing on the wall already. EU Council President Tusk's negotiating guidelines are not vindictive.26 The EU is opening the possibility of a multi-year transition period after the formal 2019 exit date and acknowledging the need under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to take account of the future relationship, i.e. to provide a framework for a trade deal. The City of London stands to lose the most, but the guidelines are so far fairly tame outside of the financial sector. Moreover, we do not expect a harder line to emerge from the EU Council meeting on April 29. Already the Dutch, Irish, and Danish have called for negotiations on a trade agreement to begin promptly, essentially agreeing with Britain's urgent timeline.27 True, the probability that Macron will be the next French president - along with a likely shift toward a more outspoken Europhile stance in Germany after elections in September - presents the prospect of a "clash" with May's triumphant Tories. Macron has called for a "strict approach" to negotiations, has threatened to model his pro-market reforms in France in such a way as to steal "banks, talents, researchers, academics" from the U.K., and has suggested that the U.K. can at best hope for a deal comparable to Canada's Free Trade Agreement with the EU. That would set a low bar for the U.K.'s all-important services exports (Chart 23). However, Macron is an establishment player who will not significantly change France's position in the negotiations from what it would have been otherwise. (A Le Pen presidency obviously would mark a change by throwing the EU into chaos, but it is highly unlikely.) France is going to demand with the rest of the EU that the U.K. pay its dues (namely a 60 billion-euro budget contribution), but it is not in the interest of France or the EU to impose, effectively, a British recession - not while they seek to cultivate their own economic recoveries. Moreover, wreaking vengeance would not necessarily discourage Euroskeptics on the continent. With Le Pen mortally wounded, the significant Euroskeptic threat lies in Italy, where an imperious approach to Brexit from Germany and France may not be well received (Chart 24). Chart 23Services Are Key For The U.K. Chart 24Punishing The U.K. May Not Dissuade Italy Bottom Line: May's early election helps remove additional political risk by giving her party more maneuverability in negotiations and a greater ability to "make do" with what the Europeans give. Though this is highly unlikely to lead to a "soft Brexit" (common market access, customs union membership, subordination to the European Court of Justice), it is much more likely to prevent Britain from sailing off into a "no deal" abyss. To be clear, we can still see scenarios in which a reversal of Brexit is possible, as discussed previously,28 but they are very low probability. The snap election enables May's government to be flexible in the negotiations and accept some difficult truths in the final deal, which will reinforce the existing tendency of the EU to avoid causing a destabilizing "punitive" break. Both sides of the Channel are positioning for a relatively market-friendly outcome. We maintain our view that the pound has bottomed. Our short USD/GBP recommendation is up 2.85% since March 29 and short EUR/GBP is up 0.14% since January 25. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Eerie Calm," dated February 10, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Caveat Emptor," dated March 24, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 French toast in fact... we'll be here all night folks! 7 The reason this plan does not make sense is because most perpetrators of terrorist attacks in France have been French or European citizens. Le Pen's plan amounts to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. 8 Please see Bloomberg, "Le Pen Struggling to Fund French Race as Russian Bank Fails," dated December 22, 2016, available at bloomberg.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Former conservative prime ministers Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Alain Juppé, as well as other prominent members of Les Républicains have already announced that they would support Macron in the second round. 11 Please see "S. Con. Res. 3 - A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017," United States Congress, available at www.congress.gov. 12 For a great summary of the arcane procedure, please see "Introduction to Budget 'Reconciliation,'" dated November 9, 2016, available at cbpp.org. 13 If Republicans choose to delay beyond May, they will have to delay producing the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This is possible but introduces problems for next year's budget appropriations and the tax reform measures which will depend on the yet-to-be-written FY2018 budget resolution's reconciliation instructions. "The reconciliation legislation that the GOP is using to partially repeal and replace the ACA has a half-life. It will expire when Congress begins drafting the fiscal 2018 budget blueprint, which will likely be sometime in May. So if Republicans want to resurrect the AHCA and avoid the need for bipartisan votes in the Senate, they will have to vote on the bill within the next several weeks." Please see Baker and Hostetler LLP, "GOP Struggles To Revive Health Bill," Lexology, April 7, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 14 In short, reconciliation can only be used to pass bills that impact spending and revenue. As such, any changes to Obamacare that do not impact fiscal matters could be found inadmissible by the Senate parliamentarian and thus could defeat the entire bill. There is of course always the "nuclear option" of simply ignoring the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian, but it is not clear whether the Senate GOP would want to go "Kim Jong-Un" twice in the same year! 15 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "American Health Care Act," March 13, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 16 Georgia's sixth congressional district is holding this special election to fill the seat left vacant by Tom Price, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appointed by Trump. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Wouldn't dynamic scoring fail to pass the "smell test" with the CBO? Yes, it would. The CBO will likely ignore Republican "magic" and apply actual "math" to the tax proposal. However, this is not an impediment to passing tax reform as the reconciliation rules can still be used as long as the legislation expires after ten years. This is how President George W. Bush passed tax cuts in 2001. 19 A study by the conservative American Action Forum suggests that Trump's regulatory cuts may save $260 billion over ten years. This is a likely source of savings to justify tax cuts, and Trump is only getting warmed up when it comes to deregulation! For the study, please see Sam Batkins, "Fiscal Benefits Of The CRA, Regulatory Reform," April 20, 2017, available at www.americanactionforum.org. 20 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Rally In Treasurys," dated April 21, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see "Conservatives fined £70,000 over expenses by election watchdog," Channel 4 News, March 16, 2017, available at www.channel4.com. 23 The Conservatives won the Copeland seat for the first time since 1982 after the Labour MP Jamie Reed's resignation there. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see "Brexit Shouldn't Delay Trade Talks Too Long, Say Leaders," Bloomberg, April 21, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 28 See note 26 above. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights It is difficult to judge how much of the recent unwind of the Trump Trades has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. Rather, U.S. military muscle-flexing is designed to force the rogue state to the negotiating table. On the economic front, the U.S. "hard" data have disappointed surveys in Q1. However, we believe this largely reflects weather and seasonal adjustment distortions. The Leading Economic Indicator and our new Beige Book Monitor support this view. Our profit growth model is very bullish for earnings this year, and is supported by our proxies for corporate pricing power. The latter is improving relative to wage growth recently, suggesting that there is more upside for margins this year. Returning cash to shareholders has not been particularly strong in this expansion relative to past expansions, contrary to popular belief. Nonetheless, buyback activity will continue to boost EPS growth by about 2 percentage points. Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. Feature Treasury yields fell to their lowest level last week since just after the U.S. Presidential election. The solid start to the Q1 earnings reporting season was not enough to offset the disappointing economic reports and geopolitical fears, leaving U.S. equity prices mostly lower on the week (Chart 1). We thought that the "hard" data would improve to meet the accelerating "soft" data, but that clearly didn't occur last week. Unusual weather in March may have been a factor. We will return to the outlook for the economy and corporate profits later in the report. Chart 1Q1 Growth Disappoints It is difficult to judge how much of the bond rally has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. President Trump's military show of force in Asia and comments about "losing patience" with North Korea have the world on edge. The U.S. has acted tough with the regime before, but nothing beyond economic sanctions ever materialized. The balance of power vis-à-vis China and the military threat to South Korea made North Korea a stalemate. Nonetheless, our geopolitical team argues that the calculus of the standoff is changing. Most importantly, the rogue regime is getting closer to being capable of hitting the U.S. with long-range missiles. Second, China is unhappy with the increased U.S. military presence in its backyard that North Korea is inviting. China also sees North Korea's missile tests as a threat to its own security. Third, the U.S. is prepared to use the threat of trade sanctions as leverage with Beijing. It is demanding that China use its own economic leverage to convince North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. But doing nothing is not an option either. Our base case is that the U.S. military's muscle-flexing is designed to force North Korea to the negotiating table. Over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. That said, this is probably North Korea's last chance to show it can be pragmatic. A failure of negotiations would induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. It would be a bad sign if North Korea's long-range missile tests continue, are successful, and show greater distances.1 The market's political focus will likely turn back to Washington this week. Congress has until April 28 to pass a bill to keep the U.S. government running through the end of fiscal year 2017. Our Geopolitical Strategy Service continues to expect a deal to get done, but a partial government shutdown lasting a few weeks could occur. Separately, Congress will need to approve an increase in the debt ceiling by July-September in order for the Treasury to avoid defaulting on payments. While the negotiations surrounding both of events could weigh on Treasury yields in the near term, our view is that they are unlikely to prevent an uptrend in yields over the coming 6-12 months. As for North Korea, the safe-haven bid in the Treasury market will moderate if Kim Jong-un agrees to negotiations. But, near term, this situation is a huge wildcard. We cannot rule out another wave of risk aversion in financial markets. As this week's publication goes to press, the results of the first round of the French presidential election are being tabulated. Please consult BCA's Daily Insight on Monday, April 24, 2017 for our first take on the election results. A Temporary Soft Patch Or Something Worse? In last week's report, we wrote that the weak readings from the "hard" economic data would soon catch up with the surging "soft" economic data. In fact, the opposite has occurred since mid-April. Is this the start of a prolonged weak patch in the U.S. economy? Or is the softness perhaps related to weather and poor seasonal adjustment? We favor the later explanation for now. The first quarter GDP report is due out this Friday, April 28. The Bloomberg consensus is looking for just a 1.2% gain in the quarter after the 2.1% increase in Q4 2016. The Atlanta Fed's "GDP Nowcast" puts Q1 GDP at just 0.5% (Chart 1). The New York Fed's "Nowcast" is at 2.7%. Both estimates have been moving consistently lower since early March, dragging down 10-year Treasury yields (with U.S. stock prices along for the ride). Financial markets should be used to weak readings on first quarter GDP by now. Between 1950 and 1996, Q1 GDP was the weakest quarter of the year in just 14 of 47 years, or 30% of the time (Table 1). Q2 growth was stronger than Q1 growth about half the time. This is just about what you would expect if the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) seasonal adjustment program was functioning properly. But something has gone awry since 1997, despite the government statisticians' recent attempts to correct the problem. Over the past 20 years, the first quarter has been the weakest GDP reading of the year 10 times, or 50% of the time, and Q2 GDP growth has been faster than Q1 growth 70% of the time. Table 1The Gap Between GDP Growth In Q1 And Q2 Has Widened In The Past 20 Years A recent study by the staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland2 suggests that the main culprits in this anomaly are in the private investment and government consumption components of GDP. More specifically, the Cleveland Fed cites defense spending as the key driver of the weakness in Q1 GDP relative to other quarters. We'll expand on this theme in next week's U.S. Investment Strategy report, but for now our view remains that the weakness in U.S. economic growth is temporary. The March reading of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator provided no warning that underlying growth is about to trail off, although a couple of the regional Fed surveys have backed off of their recent highs. With April shaping up to be warmer than usual across the U.S., we expect a bounce back in weather-impacted "hard" data like retail sales, housing starts and industrial production. The April update of our Beige Book Monitor, which we introduced last week, confirms that the economy is stronger than the GDP data suggest (Chart 2). The Monitor is simply the difference between the percentage of "strong" versus "weak" descriptors for growth in the document. Chart 2BCA Beige Book Monitor Upbeat For Growth The Monitor edged higher in April to 65%, from 51% in the March reading. "Weather" was mentioned 18 times, after just 6 mentions in March. More than two thirds of the 18 mentions of weather in April cited it as having a negative impact on economic activity. This supports our view that weather had a non-negligible impact on the hard data in March. Thus, if the weather in the first three weeks of April persists into the final week of the month, the stage is set for a noticeable improvement in U.S. economic data released in May. All else equal, this should temper fears that the U.S. economic expansion has lost momentum, supporting stock prices and allowing the recent bond rally to unwind (depending on geopolitics). The soft March CPI also appeared to be quirky, revealing that the core measure actually contracted in March (Chart 3). We note, however, that the weak March reading followed two months of extremely strong gains. In addition, it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015. While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Our "inflation words" indicator based on the Beige Book remains in an uptrend (Chart 2). Chart 3Has U.S. Inflation Peaked? A rebound in the activity data in the coming months should keep the Fed on track to raise rates at least two more times in 2017. A rate hike in next month is unlikely, but we would not rule out June if the economic data firm as we expect. Positive Signs For U.S. Corporate Pricing Power Another 82 S&P 500 companies report first quarter results this week, making it the busiest week of the season. The consensus for Q1 earnings growth remains near 10% on a 4-quarter trailing basis. That forecast is likely to be met. We highlighted the positive 2017 outlook for U.S. corporate profits in the April 10, 2017 Weekly Report. The U.S. experienced a profit recession in 2016 that did not coincide with an economic recession. Oil prices were part of the story, but we have seen this pattern occur several time since the late 1990s; nominal GDP growth (a proxy for top line growth) decelerates temporarily relative to labor compensation growth. Margins get squeezed but, since the economy manages to avoid a recession, nominal GDP growth subsequently rebounds relative to labor compensation. This resulted in a 'catch up' phase when earnings-per-share growth accelerated sharply and equity returns were favorable. We believe that U.S. earnings are in the same type of catch-up phase now, which has been accentuated by the rebound in oil prices. Proprietary indicators from our sister publication, the U.S. Equity Strategy service, confirm our thesis. First, deflation pressures appear to be abating. A modest revival in corporate pricing power is underway according to our Pricing Power Proxy (Chart 4). It is constructed from proxies for selling prices in almost 50 industries. Importantly, the rise in the Proxy is broadly based across industries (as shown by the diffusion index in the chart). As a side note, the Proxy provides some evidence that softness in core CPI will not last. At the same time, the upward march of wage growth appears to be taking a breather (Chart 4). Average hourly earnings growth has softened in recent months. Broader measures, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, tell a similar story. We do not expect wage growth to decelerate much given tightness in the labor market. Nonetheless, the combination of firming pricing power and contained wage growth (for now) suggests that margins will continue to expand modestly in the first half of the year. Our model even suggests that U.S. EPS growth has a very good shot at matching (perpetually optimistic) bottom-up estimates for 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Sector Gaining ##br##Some Pricing Power Chart 5Profit Model##br## Is Very Bullish Companies have supported per share profits in this expansion in part via share buybacks, often funded through debt issuance. This has generated some angst that companies are sacrificing long-term earnings growth potential for short-term EPS growth. This appeared to be the case early in the expansion, but the story is less compelling today. Chart 6 compares the cumulative dollar value of equity buybacks and dividends in this expansion with the previous three expansion phases. The cumulative dollar values are divided by cumulative nominal GDP to make the data comparable across cycles. By this metric, capital spending has lagged previous expansion, but not by much. While capital spending growth has been weak, the same has been true for GDP growth. Chart 6Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Dividend payments have been stronger than the three previous expansions. Buyback activity was also more aggressive compared with the 1990s and 2000s, although repurchase activity has been roughly in line with the expansion that ended in 2007. Net equity withdrawal since 2009, which includes the net impact of IPOs, share buybacks and M&A activity, has not been out of line with previous expansions. Bottom Line: CFOs have not been radically different in this cycle in terms of apportioning funds between capital spending and returning cash to shareholders. Buyback Tailwind To Continue How important are buybacks to EPS growth? Chart 7 (second panel) presents a rough proxy for the historical impact of equity withdrawal that is based on the S&P 500 divisor. It is the difference between EPS growth and growth in total dollar earnings. When the line is above zero, it means that EPS growth has been lifted above dollar earnings growth via equity withdrawals. Chart 7Buybacks Adding Almost ##br##2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth This proxy must be taken with a grain of salt due to the manner in which the divisor is calculated. Nonetheless, it suggests that buybacks have boosted EPS growth by 2 percentage points in the year to 2016Q4. We expect that buyback activity will continue to be a mild tailwind in the coming quarters given the positive reading from our Capital Structure Preference Indicator (Chart 7, third panel). This Indicator is defined as the equity risk premium minus the default adjusted high-yield corporate bond yield. When the indicator is above zero, there is financial incentive for firms to issue debt and buy back shares. Conversely, firms are incentivized to issue stock and retire debt when the indicator is below zero. The Indicator is currently positive, although not as high as it was in 2015. Bottom Line: Buybacks have not had an outsized impact on EPS growth in this cycle, but the good news is that this tailwind is likely to continue. Capitalization Strategy: Stick With Small Caps The relative performance of U.S. small vs large cap stocks surged following the November election, but has since retraced about two-thirds of its post-election gains and has recently been trading below its 200-day moving average. Small cap stocks have been one of several "Trump trades" that have waned over the past three months, but our view is that several positive tailwinds for small cap relative performance continue to warrant an overweight stance: Panel 1 of Chart 8 highlights that our cyclical capitalization indicator has moved sharply into positive territory following the election, and has remained positive despite the recent weakness in small cap relative performance. Small cap stocks have been a reliably high-beta segment of U.S. capital markets since the middle of the last economic cycle (panel 2), which argues for a bullish stance given our overweight positions in U.S. equities versus bonds. Our relative valuation indicator for U.S. small caps has moved back towards neutral valuation territory, which is a significant change from the conditions that prevailed in the early part of the U.S. economic recovery. Chart 9 shows that the indicator was consistently elevated from 2009 until early-2015, but has since fallen back to zero. While relative prices have accounted for some of this adjustment, the relative (trailing) earnings trend for small cap stocks remains in an uptrend and has recently risen to an all-time high, despite a disappointing Q1. Chart 10 highlights one risk to the small cap trade that will be important to monitor. The chart shows the NFIB's outlook survey along with the percentage of respondents citing "red tape" as the most important problem facing their business. The consistent rise in concerns about red tape under the Obama administration, especially the strong rise that began in 2010, suggests that small firms have found elements of the Affordable Care Act to be particularly burdensome for their business. This suggests that a portion of the sharp rise in the outlook for small businesses following the election has occurred due to expectations that the ACA will be repealed, in turn implying that confidence may wither following the failure of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to even be subjected to a vote in the House. Chart 8Beta And The Cycle Argue ##br##For Small Caps Chart 9Small Caps Are##br## No Longer Expensive Chart 10Watch The Change Of A "Trump Slump" ##br##In Small Business Sentiment While several planned policies of the Trump administration have indeed been delayed due to the failure of the AHCA, we remain of the view that a legislative agenda that at least appears to be pro-business remains in place. As such, our view is that it is too early to abandon a bullish bias towards small cap stocks, especially given the major improvement in relative valuation that we noted above. Bottom Line: Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. The failure of the AHCA may cause a near-term pullback in small business confidence, but we doubt that this will be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Lingering Residual Seasonality in GDP Growth," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, March 28, 2017.

Highlights The U.S. dollar correction is entering its last innings as investors now only discount marginally more than one rate hike by the Fed over the next 12 months. The last leg of the USD's weakness is likely to be prompted by technical and political factors. Beyond this, the outlook for the U.S. economy remains healthy, yet investors have pared down their expectations, suggesting that positive surprises should emerge. The conciliatory tone of the so-called currency manipulator report suggests that the hopes of a Plaza 2.0 accord should get dashed. EUR/GBP has downside. Feature The dollar continues to decline. Doubts about President Trump's pro-growth agenda and higher borrowing costs are creating worries about future economic growth. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's admonition that fiscal reform may be delayed only added fuel to the fire. The reality is a bit more nuanced than this. The global economy just experienced one of its most broad-based periods of improvement in decades. Earlier this year, our global economic and financial diffusion index, based on 106 indicators, hit its highest level since 1999 (Chart I-1). This upswing caused global growth expectations to surge, as highlighted by large moves in the global and U.S. stock-to-bond ratios. Chart I-1Broad-Based Economic Upswing Has Lifted Growth Expectations Still, such a pace of improvement is hard to maintain. The handicap is even greater given one of the sharpest increases in global borrowing costs of the past thirty years. Thus, an almost unavoidable growth disappointment is currently underway, as illustrated by the sudden swoon in global economic surprises. As negative surprises accumulate, it is natural for investors to tame their growth expectations, and in the process, to have pulled down their expectations for the level of the Fed funds rate 12 months out (Chart I-2). Unsurprisingly, the dollar has corrected in the process. Going forward, the flattening yield curve and weak inflation expectations could cause market expectations for the Fed Funds rate to fall further (Chart I-3). A downgrade in Fed expectations could push the DXY toward 97 - particularly given that the greenback currently stands at a crucial support (Chart I-4). Chart I-2A Full Rate Hike Has Been ##br##Purged From Expectations Chart I-3The Source Of ##br##The Worry Chart I-4Dollar At ##br##Crucial Spot Moreover, while our dollar capitulation index is already flirting with oversold readings, it can remain in that territory for extended periods of time. In fact, as long as this indicator stays below its 13-week moving average, the dollar tends to remain under downward pressure (Chart I-5). This would suggest that the window of weakness in the dollar has yet to be closed and that a break toward 98-97 in DXY is still very likely. Chart I-5Momentum Still A Headwind For The Dollar Outside of growth considerations, politics could also contribute to a last wave of selling in the dollar against the euro. Macron, the centrist candidate for the French presidency, is currently polling 25% of voting intentions for the first electoral round this weekend, ahead of Marine Le Pen. Yet the press continues to focus on Jean-Luc Mélanchon's surge in the polls, despite the fact that his popularity gains have stalled at 19%. This means that markets may get positively surprised Sunday night when French electoral results come in as the implied probability of a Le Pen / Mélanchon second round has risen. If as is more likely, Macron, not Mélanchon, makes it to the second round, it is important to remember that in head-to-head polls, he currently scores 64% vs 36% for Marine Le Pen (Chart I-6). Beyond these short-term dynamics, the outlook for the dollar continues to look brighter. To begin with, major leading indicators of the U.S. economy still point to a rebound later this year: The ISM manufacturing highlights that the decline in credit growth may be a temporary episode (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Positive Euro Stock This Weekend? Chart I-7U.S. Credit Growth Will Pick Up The U.S. CEO Confidence survey is at a 12 year high, and points toward both stronger capex and GDP growth (Chart I-8). The soft job number in March is likely to have been an aberration, as various indicators suggest that job growth will remain perky (Chart I-9). Moreover, this is happening in an environment where labor market slack is likely to prove limited. Not only is the headline U-3 unemployment rate now in line with NAIRU, but also hidden labor market slack - as approximated by discouraged workers and part-time workers for economic reasons - has greatly normalized (Chart I-10), suggesting that healthy job creation should result in accelerating wage growth this year. The elevated level of consumer confidence along with the healthy state of household finances - debt to disposable income still stands near 15-year lows and debt-service payments are at multi-generational lows - are together pointing toward stronger consumer spending. Chart I-8When CEOs Are Happy, ##br##So Is The Economy Chart I-9Soft March Payrolls: ##br##An Aberration Chart I-10U.S. Labor Market ##br##Slack Is Limited These developments are important as our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for the United States has now firmly moved into no-slack territory (Chart I-11). As such, improvements in the U.S. economy later this year will give the Fed plenty of ammunition to increase rates. Thus, we think that markets are ultimately underestimating the FOMC's capacity to lift rates by only anticipating marginally more than one rate hike over the next 12 months. Chart I-11U.S. Capacity Constraints Are Getting Hit As a result, buy any further dips in the dollar. We are already long the USD against commodity currencies, but will use any weakness to close our short USD/JPY trade and begin accumulating the dollar against the euro. In terms of level, we will close our short USD/JPY position at 107 and look to open a short EUR/USD bet at 1.10. Bottom Line: Markets are revising down their expected path for U.S. interest rates, causing a correction in the dollar in the process. After a period of robust and widespread growth improvement, expectations had become lofty and a period of indigestion was all but inevitable. However, forward looking indicators for U.S. growth are still healthy. With U.S. spare capacity becoming increasingly limited, investors are in the process of overdoing their downward adjustment in future U.S. rates. Use any further pull back in the U.S. dollar to buy the greenback. Currency Manipulators On Notice? Not Really This week, the U.S. Treasury published its annual report on Forex policies for the U.S.'s major trading partners, the so-called currency manipulator report. This time around, the report was especially interesting in light of the aggressive campaign rhetoric from President Trump. Chart I-12Conditions For Inflation Are ##br##Emerging In Japan Six countries were highlighted as hitting two of the three criteria necessary to be labeled currency manipulators. These were China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Most interesting was the tone of the discussion around China and Japan. Regarding China, the Treasury acknowledged that the PBoC is intervening in the currency market, however not to depress the value of the yuan, but to support it. The discussion was centered on the need for China to ease import restrictions and promote household consumption in order to narrow both the overall current account surplus and the bilateral trade surplus with the United States. These would be steps in the right direction to normalize the Sino-U.S. trade disequilibrium without entering in an all-out trade war. The discussion vis-à-vis Japan was also nuanced. Obviously, Japan's US$69 billion trade surplus with the U.S. was flagged, but the Treasury also acknowledged that the country's 3.7% current account surplus mostly reflected a very large positive income balance. Additionally, the Treasury also recognized that the large surplus was a reflection of Japan's poor domestic demand and that Japan needed to complement its very accommodative monetary policy with further fiscal boost and reforms. We interpreted this comment as a tacit acceptance that Abenomics and the BoJ's policy were squarely domestically focused and that the weak yen was a casualty, not the ultimate end-goal of these policies. With this recognition, it seems unlikely that the calls for a Plaza 2.0 accord would go anywhere. Instead, we expect similar demands to the one exerted on China to take precedence: more opening of the domestic market to imports and more Japanese FDI in the U.S. With this, the U.S. will live with a very dovish BoJ. In this optic, a key development emerged this week in Japan. Two BoJ governors have been replaced by two Abe philosophical allies, Mr. Hitoshi Suzuki and Mr. Goshi Kataoka. Therefore, Japan's monetary policy will remain very accommodative going forward as the near total control of the board by ultra-doves reinforces the institution's commitment to "irresponsible" monetary policy. Most importantly, our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for Japan is now in the zone where core inflation should accelerate (Chart I-12). This suggests that inflationary dynamics are likely to emerge after the current wave of global negative economic surprises abates. This should result in exactly what the BoJ wants: lower real rates and higher inflation expectations. This would be poisonous for the yen. Any further yen rally should be used to once again short the JPY. With regards to Germany, the Treasury acknowledged that ECB monetary policy is out of Berlin's control, but it would like to see more efforts to boost domestic demand, and a higher real exchange rate. In other words, at this point the Treasury seems to be hoping for higher German inflation more than for a higher euro. This too is re-assuring considering the initial aggressive stance of the Trump administration toward Germany. Switzerland, Korea, and Taiwan are in slightly more precarious conditions as all have been engaging in open market operations to depress the value of their currencies in recent years. However, with the softened tone exhibited toward China, Japan, and Germany, there is a high chance that the Treasury will find ways to turn a blind eye on these countries going forward. Bottom Line: The current U.S. administration is softening its tough rhetoric on trade and it is coming to grips with the reality that it may not be able to bully its trading partners into appreciating their currencies. Instead, Trump is likely to have to be content with fewer trade barriers to access these nations, and further efforts to stimulate domestic demand, which indirectly may help U.S. exports to these countries. We see these developments as steps in the right direction that should decrease the risks currently hanging over global trade. Politics Abound: What To Do With The Euro And The Pound? This week, Theresa May called for a snap election on June 8. The market perceived this announcement as very positive for the U.K.: it will decrease the risk of a very harsh form of Brexit. A larger Conservative victory, which seems highly likely based on current polls, implies that May will be less reliant on the most extremist Brexiters to govern. As such, the U.K. is perceived to be more likely to concede on some key EU demands such as Brussels's request that London pays the GBP 60 billion it owes to the EU's 2014-2020 budget. If these demands are met by the U.K., it is expected that the EU will be less intransigent when it comes to negotiating transitional agreements. On these dynamics, GBP/USD rallied 2.2% on Tuesday and now stands above its 200-day moving average for the first time since that fateful June 2016 night. EUR/GBP too was hurt by the pound rally, retesting its post referendum lows. What is the outlook for GBP/USD and EUR/GBP? The picture for EUR/GBP is the cleanest. A quick rally next week if Macron clenches a spot in the second round of the French election is very likely, especially as investors might have discounted the positive implications of the election on the pound too quickly. Any such rally should be used to begin building short EUR/GBP positions. EUR/GBP is currently trading 12% above its PPP fair value, but it is also trading at a large premium to real interest rate differentials (Chart I-13, top panel). Moreover, investors are starting to adjust upward the expected path of short rates in the U.K. relative to the euro area. This historically has been associated with a stronger pound (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Additionally, as we have argued, the negative factors affecting the U.K. economy are well known. Yet, the stability of long-term U.K. household inflation expectations suggests that the adjustment in consumption in response to high inflation caused by the lower pound could be limited as households may look through any temporary bump in inflation.1 Finally, positioning and sentiment on EUR/GBP are extremely stretched. Historically, such extended levels of bullishness toward the euro relative to the pound have been followed by sharp sell-offs in EUR/GBP (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Real Rates Points To ##br##EUR/GBP Downside Chart I-14Investors Are Positioned For##br## Further Euro Strength When it comes to the GBP/USD, the pound may continue to rebound in the short term toward 1.35. However, the upside in GBP/USD is likely to be capped if our bullish view on the dollar does pan out. This is why we prefer to express positive views on the pound via a short position in EUR/GBP. Bottom Line: The June 8 U.K. general election is important as it does increase the probability that Theresa May will be able to soften the U.K.'s negotiating stance on key budgetary points regarding Brexit. This means that longer and smoother transitional agreements between the U.K. and the EU are likely to emerge at the end of the Article 50 negotiations. Meanwhile, EUR/GBP is expensive relative to PPP metrics and rate differentials. The risk of a breakdown below 0.83 is growing, especially as investors are not positioned for a rally in the pound against the euro. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the U.K. economy, please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "GBP: Dismal Expectations", dated January 13, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback's weakness has been a result of declining price and wage pressures this month. A weaker than expected jobless claims and Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Survey are both indications of the current economic soft patch. However, this is a temporary setback that will do little to alter the Fed's intended hiking cycle. The DXY is currently at a crucial technical level and could face significant pressure from an appreciating euro in the run-up to the French elections. After the outcome of these elections is digested, a return to robust U.S. data will likely propel the greenback upwards as the Fed will keeping lifting rates relative to the rest of the G10. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro strengthens on the back of an optimistic interpretation of Praet's speech in New York. The central banker alluded to diminishing growth risks, but pointed out that short-term risks still remain. It seems that markets have priced in the end of the ECB's easing cycle. Further lifting the euro is expectations that Emmanuel Macron is on his way to the second round of the French election. However, it remains true that peripheral economies are stumbling along with high unemployment and little-to-no wage growth, which points toward widening U.S./European real rate differentials in the longer term. Inflation figures remained unchanged in March both in monthly and annual terms. An annual core inflation figure of 0.7% implies that inflationary pressures remain muted. A bearish outlook on the euro after the French elections is warranted. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 ECB: All About China? - April 7, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 On Tuesday the Japanese parliament nominated Hitoshi Suzuki and Goshi Kataoka to replace two members of the BoJ who had been serial dissenters of Governor Kuroda. This development is important as both of the nominees are known reflationists, which confirms our thesis that the Abe government is committed to support Kuroda's agenda. As the BoJ becomes increasingly dominated by doves, Kuroda will have more leeway in implementing radical reflationary measures, which is bearish for the yen on a cyclical basis. On a tactical basis, we believe the downtrend in USD/JPY might be approaching its last legs, given that we expect the dollar correction to end soon. On the other hand, a risk-off period in the markets seems probable, thus we will stay short NZD/JPY to capture investor's risk aversion. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Cable surged following Theresa May's call of a snap election as the market became less bearish on the U.K. economy given that the election provides an opportunity for the Prime Minister to assert her power over the more radical MPs, and thus set the stage for a softer Brexit. We continue to be relatively optimistic on the pound, particularly against the euro, as we believe that the market is too pessimistic on the U.K. economy. Furthermore, the BoE has shown much less dovish than the ECB as Governor Carney has stated that they will undergo "some modest withdrawal of stimulus" in the next few years, while many members seem to be leaning towards a rate hike. Taking these factors into account, as well as the overly bullish positioning on the euro relative to the pound, we are now confident in shorting EUR/GBP. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The antipodean currency experienced significant downside amidst dovish remarks by the RBA. Highlighted in the minutes were worries associated with the labor market, with members citing higher unemployment and underemployment as contributors to faltering wage growth. As a corollary, the rise in underlying inflation is expected to be "more gradual", with headline inflation expected to reach its 2% target sometime this year. However, members also stressed the role of energy prices, which could complicate the process. An important observation is the adverse impact of Hurricane Debbie on coal production, a major export for Australia. In merrier news, China's economy outperformed expectations, achieving a growth rate of 6.9% in Q1. However, this is a backward looking indicator and likely corroborates the AUD's strength in Q1, while the recent weakness in Chinese capital spending plans and residential property prices are more accurate indicators of future AUD development. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 This week, kiwi headline inflation came at 2.2%, not only surpassing expectations but also reaching the upper half of the 1%-3% target inflation range for the RBNZ. This confirms our suspicion that inflationary pressures in New Zealand are much stronger than what the RBNZ would lead you to believe, and opens the possibility that the RBNZ could abandon its neutral bias for a more hawkish one. This should help the NZD outperform the AUD on a cyclical basis, given that the Australia's domestic inflationary pressures are much weaker. On a tactical basis, we continue to be short the NZD relative to the JPY, given that a China induced risk-off episode will boost safe heavens and hurt carry currencies. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Within the commodity space, CAD should benefit against other commodity currencies. Oil is likely to face relatively consistent global demand vis-a-vis other commodities, such as industrial metals, as it is more insusceptible to the "unwinding of the Trump trade". Moreover, BCA foresees an extension of the OPEC production cuts for the remainder of the year, which will support oil-based currencies. Faltering capital expenditure in China will work against industrial metal demand, further accentuating this development. Limiting the CAD's upside, however, is a stronger USD this year, most probably after April is over. Real rate differentials will evolve in favor of the USD, limiting the upside to commodity prices in general. The result will be an outperformance of CAD relative to AUD and NZD. Finally, the recent non-resident tax implemented by Ontario my cause hick-ups in Canada's largest housing market. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Economic data in Switzerland continues to improve as various measures such as manufacturing PMI, employment PMI and purchase prices have reached 2011 highs. These developments along with rising inflation, will reassure the SNB that the unofficial floor under EUR/CHF has been effective. Nevertheless, we expect the SNB to keep this floor in place until the end of the year, as not only do French elections pose a short term risk, but core inflation and wage growth would have to stay high for a sustainable period of time for the SNB to consider removing accomodation. Moreover, the removal of the floor would likely be gradual, as the SNB has learned from 2015 that a sharp appreciation in the franc could quickly undo any economic progress. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Although USD/NOK has been quite uncorrelated with oil in recent months, EUR/NOK continues to be highly correlated with oil prices. Overall, we expect the NOK to exhibit weakness against the dollar on a cyclical basis given that dollar bull markets tend to weigh on this cross. Moreover, the Norges Bank will continue to have a dovish bias, given that inflation is falling sharply and economic conditions remain weak. However, on a tactical basis, it is possible that the NOK outperforms the AUD, given that base metals are more sensitive to weaknesses in the Chinese economy. Oil, on the other hand, should stay relatively resilient, given that an extension of the OPEC deal until the end of the year seems very likely. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has largely been trading on the news flow from the U.S. and the euro area following a quiet week in Sweden. Similar to the DXY, USD/SEK is at a crucial technical spot, and EUR/SEK is likely to continue its uptrend in the run-up to the French election. Next week's Riksbank meeting is the last meeting before asset purchases end in June. As inflationary pressures are unlikely to subside substantially, we firmly believe that asset purchases will not be extended further. Nevertheless, while not shifting the policy rate, the Riksbank is likely to reiterate that a future cut is more likely than a future hike, especially as recent inflation figures have disappointed. This is likely to help USD/SEK in the longer run. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Treasury yields have slumped since early March, helping to push down the dollar. Slower U.S. growth in the first quarter of the year, weak inflation readings, uncertainty on tax reform, the prospect of a government shutdown, and rising political risks in Europe have all contributed to the Treasury rally. Looking out, U.S. growth should accelerate while growth abroad will stay reasonably firm. The market is pricing in only 34 basis points in rate hikes over the next 12 months. This seems too low to us. Go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. Feature What Explains The Treasury Rally? Global bond yields have swooned since early March. The 10-year Treasury yield fell to as low as 2.18% this week, down from a closing high of 2.62% on March 13th. A number of fundamental factors have contributed to the Treasury rally: Recent "hard data" on the U.S. growth picture has been somewhat disappointing. The Atlanta Fed's model suggests that real GDP expanded by only 0.5% in Q1 (Chart 1). So far this month, hard data on payrolls, housing starts, and auto sales have fallen short of consensus expectations. Credit growth has also decelerated sharply (Chart 2). The prospect of tax cuts this year have faded. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the Financial Times on Monday that getting a tax bill through Congress by August was "highly aggressive to not realistic at this point."1 Meanwhile, worries about a government shutdown - possibly coming as early as next week - have escalated. Recent inflation readings have been on the soft side. Core CPI dropped by 0.12% month-over-month in March, the first outright decline since 2010. China's growth outlook remains cloudy. Government officials warned this week that recent measures undertaken to cool the housing sector will begin to bite later this month.2 Concerns that the French election will feature a runoff between the "Alt-Right" candidate, Marine Le Pen, and the "Ctrl-Left" candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, have intensified (Chart 3). Euroskeptic parties also continue to make gains in Italy (Chart 4). Chart 1A Disappointing First Quarter Chart 2Credit Growth Slowdown While none of the things listed above can be easily dismissed, the key question for fixed-income investors is whether bond yields are already adequately discounting these risks. Keep in mind that markets are pricing in only 34 basis points in Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 5). This is substantially less than the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, which implies three more hikes between now and next April. Chart 3French Elections: A Many-Way Race? Chart 4Euroskepticism Is On The Rise In Italy Chart 5Markets Are Too Sanguine About The Fed's Rate Hike Intentions U.S. Economy Still In Reasonably Good Shape Our view on rates for the next year is closer to the Fed's than the market's. Yes, the "hard data" on U.S. growth has been lackluster. However, as we discussed last week, the hard data may be biased down by seasonal adjustment problems.3 Moreover, the hard data tend to lag the soft data, and the latter remain reasonably perky. Reflecting the strength of the soft data, our newly-released Beige Book Monitor points to an improving growth picture across the Fed's 12 districts (Chart 6). Worries about plunging credit growth are also overstated. While the increase in interest rates since last year has likely curbed credit demand, some of the recent deceleration in business lending appears to be due to the improving financial health of energy companies. Higher profits have permitted these firms to pay back old bank loans, while also enabling them to finance new capital expenditures using internally-generated funds. In addition, the rising appetite for corporate debt has also allowed more companies to access the bond market. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. leveraged-loan market saw $434 billion in issuance in Q1, the highest level on record (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Districts See Things Improving Chart 7More And More Leveraged Loans Looking out, business lending should pick up. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey indicates that banks stopped tightening lending standards to businesses in Q1. This should help boost the supply of credit over the coming months (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the recovery in the manufacturing sector will bolster credit demand. Chart 9 shows that an increase in the ISM manufacturing index leads business lending by 6-to-12 months. Chart 8Bank Lending Standards: Stable For Businesses, Tighter For Consumers Chart 9Manufacturing ISM Points To A Pick Up In Business Lending As far as household credit is concerned, higher interest rates and tighter lending standards for consumer loans (especially auto loans) are both headwinds. Nevertheless, overall household leverage has fallen back to 2003 levels and the household debt-service ratio is at multi-decade lows (Chart 10). And while delinquencies have edged higher, they are still well below their historic average (Chart 11). Chart 10Lower Household Leverage Chart 11Despite Slight Uptick, Delinquency Rates Remain Well Contained A reasonably solid growth picture should help lift inflation over the coming months. Chart 12 shows that inflation tends to accelerate once unemployment falls below its full employment level. The U.S. headline unemployment rate currently stands at 4.5%, below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Other measures of labor market slack also point to an economy that is quickly running out of surplus labor (Chart 13). As such, it is not surprising that the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker continues to trend higher, as has the NFIB's labor compensation gauge and most other measures of labor compensation (Chart 14). Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Chart 13Disappearing Labor Market Slack Chart 14U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing To Rising Wage Pressures Wage Growth Trending Higher U.S. Political Risks Will Diminish... The political risks which have pushed down Treasury yields since early March should also subside over the coming weeks. Concerns that the Trump administration will be unable to pass tax cuts are overblown. Unlike in the case of health care, there is virtual unanimity among Republicans in favor of cutting taxes.4 Congressional hearings on tax reform are scheduled to begin next week. We expect Trump to move quickly to get a deal done. He needs a political victory and this is his best shot. We are also not especially worried about the prospect of a government shutdown. Congress needs to agree on a bill to extend government funding beyond April 28 when congressional appropriations are set to expire. So far, Republican leaders are pursuing a sensible strategy of keeping controversial items - including funding for a border wall and cuts to Obamacare subsidies - out of the bill in the hopes of attracting enough Democrat support to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Without the inclusion of these contentious measures, it would be politically difficult for the Democrats to take any action that triggers a government shutdown, as they would be blamed for the outcome. ...As Will Risks In Europe... Chart 15The French Are Not Euroskeptic In the U.K., Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold a snap election reduces the risk of a "hard Brexit." The current slim 17-seat majority that the Conservatives hold in Parliament has made May highly dependent on a small band of hardline Tories. These uncompromising MPs would rather see negotiations break down than acquiesce to any of the EU's demands, including that the U.K. pay the remaining £60 billion portion of its contribution to the EU's 2014-20 budget. If the Conservative Party is able to increase its control over Parliament - as current opinion polls suggest is likely - May will have greater flexibility in reaching an agreement with Brussels and will face less of a risk that Parliament shoots down the final deal. Worries about the outcome of French elections should also diminish. Opinion polls continue to signal that Emmanuel Macron will make it to the second round of the presidential contest. If that happens, he would be a shoo-in to win against either Marine Le Pen or the far-left challenger Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Even in the unlikely event that Le Pen or Mélenchon ends up prevailing, their ability to push through their agendas would be severely constrained. Neither candidate is likely to secure a majority in the National Assembly when legislative elections are held in June. French presidents have a lot of leeway over foreign affairs, but need the support of parliament to change taxes, government spending, regulations, or most other aspects of domestic policy.5 Also, keep in mind that France's place in the EU is enshrined in the French constitution. Any modifications to the constitution would require that a referendum be called. Considering that French voters are highly pessimistic of their future outside of the EU, it would require a seismic shift in voter preferences for France to end up following the U.K.'s example (Chart 15). ...And In China Lastly, the risks of a trade war between the U.S. and China have eased following President Trump's summit with President Xi. This should help stem Chinese capital outflows. On the domestic front, the government's efforts to clamp down on property speculation will cool the economy. However, as our China team has pointed out, this may not be such a bad thing, given that recent activity has been strong and parts of the economy are showing signs of overheating. Investment Conclusions Chart 16Bet On The Fed The reflation trade will eventually fizzle out, but our sense is that this will be more of a story for late next year than for 2017. For now, underlying global growth is still strong and the sort of imbalances that usually precipitate recessions are not severe enough. If there is going to be one big surprise in the U.S. fixed-income market this year, it is that the Fed sticks to its guns and keeps raising rates at a pace of roughly once per quarter. With that in mind, we recommend that clients go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract as a tactical trade (Chart 16). A rebound in U.S. rate expectations will lead to a widening in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. This will produce a stronger dollar. The yen is likely to suffer the most in a rising rate environment, given the Bank of Japan's policy of keeping the 10-year JGB yield pinned close to zero. On the equity side, we continue to recommend a modestly overweight position in global stocks. Investors should favor Japan and the euro area over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Sam Fleming, Demetri Savastopulo, and Shawn Donnan, "Interview With Steven Mnuchin: Transcript," Financial Times, Monday April 17, 2017. 2 Li Xiang, "Real Estate Investment Likely To Slow Down," Chinadaily.com.cn, April 18, 2017. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Towards Parity," dated April 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The July 2016 to January 2017 doubling of the global bond yield was possibly the sharpest ever 6-month spike in modern economic history. Its toll is a global growth pause - evidenced by the post February 2017 synchronized retracement of bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices. Until bank credit flows stabilize, stay cyclically overweight bonds - especially T-bonds... ...and stay underweight bank equities, but overweight real estate equities. Fade any knee-jerk move in the CAC40 after the French Presidential Election first round result. Feature Since February, world bond yields have edged down in synchronized fashion; commodity prices - including the global bellwether Dr. Copper - have fallen together (Chart I-2); global steel production has suffered an abrupt reversal; and cyclical sectors in the stock market have rolled over (Chart I-3). Chart of the WeekSharpest Proportionate Change In Bond Yields... Ever? Chart I-2Compelling Evidence Of A Global Growth Pause: ##br##Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Have Rolled Over Chart I-3Steel Production And Cyclical Equity##br## Sectors Have Rolled Over Too For us, the synchronized decline in the four separate indicators - bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices - can mean only one thing: a global growth pause. The Largest Proportionate Increase In Bond Yields Ever... To make sense of what is happening, let's ask a simple but crucial question. If interest rates go up, from say 1% to 2%, is it the absolute increase - of 1% - that matters more for the economy, or is it the proportionate increase - a doubling - that matters more? We ask this simple question because the 0.75% absolute increase in the global government bond yield through July 2016 to January 2017 amounted to one of the sharpest rises in the past decade (Chart I-4). But when it comes to the proportionate increase, the doubling of the global yield in 6 months was the sharpest spike in at least 70 years, and quite possibly the sharpest 6-month spike ever in economic history! (Chart I-5 and Chart of the Week). Chart I-4A Sharp Absolute Spike In ##br##Global Bond Yields... Chart I-5...But An Extremely Sharp ##br##Proportionate Spike Anybody with a mortgage knows that it is not the absolute change in the mortgage rate that matters for your budget; it is the proportionate change that matters. A 1% rise in rates hurts much less when rates start high than when they start low. One way to see this is that to note that a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s - when the level of yields was already high. But outside this era of high nominal numbers, a 1% yield spike over six months is almost unheard of (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6A 1% Rise In Bond Yields Over Six Months Was Very Common In The 70s And 80s Chart I-7But Today A 1% Rise Equates To An Extreme Proportionate Increase Some people might counter that interest payments are just a transfer from borrowers to savers. For every borrower who complains at a doubling of his interest outlays, there is a mirror-image saver who rejoices at a doubling of his interest income. But understand that higher interest rates do not just redistribute spending power from borrowers to savers. The much more important economic effect almost always comes from the impact on bank lending. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to create money out of thin air. When a bank issues a new loan, the borrower's spending power instantaneously goes up, but there is no equal and opposite saver whose spending power goes down. ...Takes Its Toll On Bank Lending Our thesis is that the change in bank lending depends on the proportionate change in long-term interest rates. If long-term rates rise by, say, 1% then a certain proportion of investment projects will suddenly become unprofitable. Firms (and households) would stop borrowing for such projects, and the drop in borrowing would equal the proportion of projects impacted. It should be clear that the distribution of investment project returns is much wider in an era of high nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 10% than in an era of low nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 1%. So the impact on borrowing of a 1% rise in rates is much less when rates are high - as they were in the 1970s and 80s - than when rates are low - as they are today. In other words, the impact depends on the proportionate increase in interest rates. And this explains why a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s, but is almost unheard of now. Some commentators point out that working in the other direction are so-called "animal spirits" - increased optimism about the future and the returns that all investment projects will generate. But as we explained in Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar, Why? 1 the greatest proportionate 6-month increase in global bond yields for at least 70 years has understandably trumped these putative animal spirits. Bank credit flows have slumped. In practice, changes in borrowing can take 3-6 months to impact spending. For this reason, we tend to monitor the change in the credit flow in the last 6 months versus the preceding 6 months. Recently, this global 6-month credit impulse has headed sharply lower (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Headed Sharply Lower Putting this all together, the sharpest spike in global bond yields in living memory has taken an understandable toll on bank credit creation and the global 6-month credit impulse. In turn, the slump in the credit impulse is now weighing on the global growth mini-cycle - as signaled by the synchronized retracement in bond yields, commodity prices, steel production and cyclical equity performance. The evidence compellingly suggests that we are two months into a global growth pause. But mini down-cycles tend to last, on average, about six months. So for the time being, and at least until bank credit flows stabilize, own bonds - especially T-bonds - and avoid cyclical equity exposure. Furthermore, as we presciently argued in our February 16 report The Contrarian Case For Bonds, when bond yields decline, bank equities are losers and real estate equities are winners. These arguments still hold. A Brief Comment On Upcoming Elections: France And The U.K. Ahead of the French Presidential Election first round on April 23, we would like to remind readers of two facts. First, the CAC40, like most mainstream European equity indexes, is a collection of large multinational companies. As such, it is not a play on French economics or politics. Indeed, compared to other European indexes, the CAC40 underexposure to banks actually makes it one of the more defensive European equity indexes. Given the loose connection between the index and domestic economics and politics, fade any knee-jerk move that happens after the first round result: sell any relative rally; buy any relative dip. Second, euro area sovereign credit spreads must ultimately relate to the relative competitiveness of their national economies, as this is what would determine the size and direction of redenomination were the euro to break up. In this regard, there is now no difference in competitiveness between France and Spain (Chart I-9), yet Bonos still yield more than OATs. So for long-term investors, it is still right to be long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-9France And Spain Have Converged On Competitiveness We will wait until the more important second round vote on May 7 to present a more detailed assessment of the impact of French politics on the European economic and investment landscape. Lastly, a quick comment on the likely snap U.K. General Election on June 8: the conventional wisdom states that U.K. politics will drive the type of Brexit; and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of the U.K. economy. But for us, the causality runs the other way round. The U.K. economy will drive the type of Brexit - the weaker the economy gets, the softer that Brexit will get (and vice-versa); and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of U.K. politics. Therefore, for us, the General Election does not appear to be a game changer - unless it delivers a shock result. I am on holiday right now, so I will cover this topic in more depth on my return next week. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on March 30, 207 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model There are no new trades this week, but all three open positions are now in profit, having produced classic liquidity-triggered trend reversals. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights The latest saber-rattling signals a turn in U.S. policy; New negotiations, with tighter sanctions, will follow; The Iran playbook can work with North Korea ... ... But failure could mean war down the road. Feature The United States's "Pivot to Asia" was not a passing fancy, as the past two weeks of saber-rattling have shown. Over this period, U.S. President Donald Trump took two largely symbolic actions in Syria and Afghanistan. First he launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, then he dropped the world's largest non-nuclear bomb on an underground hub of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. Neither action implied an increase in commitment to the region. Instead, the spotlight shifted to North Korea. Trump's multiple conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping, his orders to move three aircraft carriers to the peninsula, and his standoff with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over a failed missile launch, all indicated that one of our major geopolitical themes is alive and well: the rotation of risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific (Chart 1).1 Chart 1The Pivot To Asia Is Not Done Yet The underlying driver of geopolitical risk on the Korean peninsula is Sino-American rivalry. China is an emerging "great power" that threatens the global dominance of the United States and its alliance system. The immediate consequence is rising friction in China's periphery. That is why Taiwan, the South China Sea, and North Korea are all heating up in various ways.2 However, North Korea's regime is highly unpredictable and potentially able to strike the American homeland in a few years. In that sense it is more significant than the other "proxy battles" between the U.S. and China.3 In essence, North Korea is no longer merely an object of satire. A big new round of negotiations over Korea is about to begin - not unlike the Iranian nuclear negotiations over the past decade. Unless diplomacy succeeds in convincing North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile progress, the potential for a military conflict is high. What Caused The Latest Spike In Tensions? This past week the new U.S. administration, hitherto untested in foreign affairs, has drawn a stark line on how it intends to manage global security. Both President Barack Obama and Presidential Candidate Trump sowed doubts about America's willingness to remain involved in maintaining global order.4 Obama seemed reluctant to reinforce American "red lines" in Syria, Ukraine, and the South China Sea; Trump threatened outright isolationism, rejecting NATO, and notably suggesting that U.S. allies Japan and South Korea might have to fend for themselves. In office, however, Trump is rapidly "normalizing" and abandoning his isolationist rhetoric. Notably, he is maintaining the Obama administration's "pivot" away from the Middle East and toward Asia Pacific. Though he unilaterally withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, he has emphasized the need to renegotiate America's relationship with China, voiced aggressive support for Taiwan, reinforced U.S. freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, and sent Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Vice President Mike Pence on high-profile regional tours. He may visit China himself in May. The current tense standoff with North Korea - which has seen high-flying rhetoric, the aircraft carrier strike groups diverted to the region, extra military exercises with South Korea and Japan, and no less than three conversations with President Xi of China - should remove any doubt that Asia is high on his foreign-policy list. Another major factor contributing to the current flare-up in Korean tensions is Korean peninsula politics. The past year has seen extraordinary South Korean domestic political turmoil and a sharp increase in the frequency of North Korean nuclear and missile tests (Chart 2). These issues are connected. Robust empirical research shows that North Korean foreign policy from 1960-2011 has been more likely to turn hostile in the context of internal difficulties as well as periods of South Korean power transition (Chart 3).5 The past year's events support that conclusion: Chart 2North Korea Run Amok? Chart 3Bull Market For North Korean Threats South Korean turmoil: South Korea's ruling party, the conservative Saenuri Party - hawkish on North Korea - has collapsed in flames under the Park Geun-hye administration. She has been impeached and removed from office and is now under arrest and investigation. It is a sequence of events without comparison since the turmoil that accompanied the country's transition to democracy in the late 1980s. Essentially, the past ten years of conservative rule in the South appear discredited, even as North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has consolidated power through purges of enemies and family members at home. If there was ever a time for the North to flex its muscles, the past year has been it. Economic weakness: Kim's muscle-flexing at home and abroad have also coincided with internal economic difficulties. China accounts for about 91% of North Korea's trade ex-South Korea, and the North has suffered from the secular slowdown in Chinese growth. Bilateral trade with China collapsed by 10% since its peak in January 2014 (Chart 4). This slowdown has been particularly pronounced in China's northeast, namely Liaoning province, which is key for North Korea. A composite indicator of Chinese and Russian provinces bordering North Korea suggests that internal demand is still contracting (Chart 5). Moreover, the North is mainly an exporter of commodities, such as coal and iron ore, and did not escape the general commodity bust of 2014-16. The Kim regime, already concerned about the pace of pseudo-liberalization of the economy, is using its military advances to distract its populace. Chart 4China Trade Took A Hit Chart 5Regional Economic Weakness These factors coalesced late last year - as we argued - to create a situation ripe for a new Korean crisis.6 The collapse of South Korea's conservatives meant that left-leaning candidates became the only real contenders in the presidential election, now scheduled on May 9 (Chart 6). All leading candidates are more likely to try diplomacy and economic engagement with North Korea than to maintain the past ten years of conservative efforts to strengthen military deterrence via stronger alliances with the U.S. and Japan.7 As a result, early this year the U.S. and the flailing Park regime rushed ahead with the deployment of the controversial THAAD missile defense system and ratcheted up pressure tactics on the North via high-intensity regular and irregular military exercises.8 The North responded by testing four short-range missiles at once, threatening to attack Japan and American bases with nuclear weapons, launching another unidentified missile in the face of U.S. warnings, and preparing to conduct another nuclear test and an intercontinental ballistic missile test for the first time. Meanwhile, China imposed sanctions on both Koreas - the former for its missile tests and the latter for THAAD, which China resolutely opposes (Chart 7).9 China sees South Korean weakness as an opportunity to increase its sway in the region, but is sanctioning the North as well because it does not want the latter to provide the U.S. with a pretext to intervene on the Korean Peninsula or take anti-China trade measures. Chart 6Leftward Swing In South Korea Chart 7China Imposes Sanctions On Seoul? Bottom Line: The recent spike in Korean tensions (as opposed to some in the past) is driven by real, geopolitical factors - not by media hype alone. The Trump administration is going forward with the "Pivot to Asia" in all but name, and showing a lower threshold than its predecessor for military action globally, while South Korea's power vacuum has emboldened North Korea in its weapons tests and China in its willingness to affect peninsular politics. Is North Korea A Red Herring? Despite the above, this week's spike in Korean tensions failed to generate real panic among global investors, though it did cause a 32% rise in Korean credit-default swaps price and a 2% depreciation of the Korean won from end of March to mid-April (Chart 8). North Korea did not conduct a major provocation on April 15 or thereafter, as it warned it might do.10 The tensions have not fizzled, but seem likely to, once again raising the question of whether North Korea is a red herring for investors. Normally we would say "Yes." Chart 9 explains why. The North has committed a number of acts of aggression over recent decades, killing American as well as South Korean citizens and servicemen. None of these acts has had a pronounced market impact. That is because there is a balance of power on the Korean peninsula and the major players refuse to allow the North to upset that balance through provocations. Chart 8South Korean Risks Rising Chart 9North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Specifically, the North already has a "nuclear option," and it has nothing to do with an atomic bomb. It is approximately 9,000 units of artillery hidden and deeply ensconced in the hills just 35 miles north of the South Korean capital Seoul. This conventional fighting force is ready to attack on a moment's notice and would take days to defeat even granting the vast superiority of American and South Korean forces. In that time it could cause massive casualties in the metropolitan area. In 1994 - when the U.S. chose diplomacy with North Korea for lack of an acceptable military option - a simulation estimated that 1 million people or 9% of the city's population might die - the equivalent of which would be 2.4 million today.11 A conventional attack on Seoul is North Korea's longstanding and well-known trump card. It has prevented the U.S. or South Korea from trying to "solve" the North Korea problem militarily for decades and it remains an active threat. The question, then, is whether this stalemate is changing in a way that breaks the cycle of transgression-and-containment and poses real risks to regional economies and political stability. The answer is "Yes" again. North Korea is no longer a red herring because its nuclear and missile capabilities are improving and it is becoming a bigger problem in U.S.-China relations. Capabilities First, North Korean capabilities are advancing steadily forward, giving the U.S. a smaller window of opportunity to decide whether it can accept a nuclear-armed North Korea. Previous crises with North Korea occurred after the Soviets fell, after 9/11, and after the Great Recession - they were driven exogenously and the U.S. had the luxury of time and distance. That is gradually proving no longer to be the case. To be clear, North Korea has not proved the ability to launch ICBMs reliably. The farthest it has ever shot a missile is around 1,000km, aside from tests of space launch vehicles, which are comparable but as yet inconclusive. Map 1 demonstrates that its missiles are currently a risk to U.S. military bases and allies in Asia Pacific more so than to the continental U.S. Even hitting Guam may be a stretch at the moment. Effective ICBM capabilities are exceedingly rare, as revealed by the fact that only a handful of countries have achieved them (the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, India, and arguably North Korea itself). Map 1North Korea's Proven Missile Reach Nevertheless, a number of prominent U.S. defense and intelligence officials have asserted that the U.S. government must be "prudent" and "assume the worst" - i.e. that the North can attach a nuclear warhead to one of its ICBMs (which may function properly) and fire it at the continental U.S.12 The North has surprised the world several times in recent memory with marked advances on everything from nuclear miniaturization to uranium enrichment to the types of long-range missiles in development. While it has not gained the ability to strike the U.S. reliably and accurately, the U.S. wants to stay ahead of the curve. Moreover, nuclear weapons will give the North a much more influential position on the global stage even assuming that it never intends to push the button. (Pyongyang is unlikely to use nukes because to do so would be regime suicide - the response of the U.S. and its allies would be devastating.) As it gains the ability to strike U.S. bases and neighboring Asian countries, it would be able to blackmail the U.S. and its allies more effectively. One result is that the U.S. and South Korea may start to drift apart. As the North gains the ability to strike the U.S. directly, the U.S. loses the willingness to delay military strikes on account of the people of Seoul. Since South Korea knows this, it has an incentive to engage with North Korea and strike a bilateral deal. This is particularly the perception among Koreans born in the 1970s and 1980s, who are gradually assuming power in the country. Though they still support the U.S., like all Koreans, nevertheless they favor it less than other age groups. They also have the highest sympathy for North Korea and China - especially compared to those born after 1988 (Chart 10 A&B). The latter are too young to take charge of policy while the more conservative elderly cohort has been discredited with the fall of Park, at least until the political pendulum swings back again at some point in the future. This suggests a basis for peace overtures. Chart 10AMiddle-Aged Koreans ##br##Sympathetic With China... Chart 10B... And With ##br##North Korea The May 9 election is likely to point in this direction. An inter-Korean thaw may encourage the North to calm down outwardly, but may also encourage its technological efforts inwardly. This occurred during the "Sunshine Policy" of liberal South Korean governments from 1998-2007. The North will expect to face greater diplomatic leniency and economic assistance. Such a thaw will also raise the potential that the U.S. and Japan eventually grow frustrated with South Korean (and Chinese) inaction over the course of talks, especially if the North breaks faith, as it did in the late 1990s and early 2000s.13 This is why a new round of negotiations is crucial to the probability of war. China The second reason North Korea is no longer a red herring for investors is that the U.S.'s approach to China is shifting - it is threatening to slap China with secondary sanctions, trade tariffs, and other measures. The U.S. is demanding that China enforce sanctions and use its economic leverage to convince the North to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. For the first time ever, the U.S. has sanctioned Chinese companies and individuals for their involvement in the North Korean missile program - this is a trend that will continue to evolve.14 Judging by China's stated willingness to ban some coal imports this year (Chart 11), Beijing knows that the U.S. is getting more serious and needs to be pacified. Chart 11Chinese Yet To Punish Pyongyang But unless "this time is different," China will not impose crippling sanctions on North Korea. The latter is a military and ideological ally, a proxy state that helps keep the U.S. alliance at bay, and a massive liability in the event of collapse (North Korean refugees would flood into northeast China). Investors should remember that the U.S. and China fought a war directly against one another over the Korean peninsula. Time and again, China chooses not to destabilize North Korea, even if that means abetting its nuclear and missile advances.15 In short, North Korea is one more reason - along with trade, China's maritime assertiveness, and Taiwan - that U.S.-China relations will worsen over time, notwithstanding the beginnings of a Trump-Xi détente at Mar-a-Lago in early April. There is some military urgency here as well: Chinese military capabilities are rapidly improving and that further narrows the window for the U.S. to shape the outcome on the peninsula militarily. The longer the U.S. waits, the greater China's ability to deter U.S. action against the North. Hence the U.S.'s simmering conflict with the North could easily feed into a larger U.S.-China confrontation. Moreover, if we are wrong and China imposes crippling sanctions on the North, the investment-relevance of North Korea still goes up. The latter will become unstable in that case, given its vast overreliance on China. Eventually the regime could fragment and impact China's economy and internal stability, or lash out at its other neighbors and instigate tit-for-tat conflicts. Bottom Line - The current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today. Table 1 provides a checklist for investors to determine if the current tensions get out of hand. Table 1Will The U.S. Attack North Korea? Investors should also be wary of U.S. sanctions on China, or broader U.S.-China tensions, which are structurally driven and have not substantially subsided despite the Trump-Xi talks. In lieu of war, a deterioration in Sino-American relations is the key investment risk from North Korea. What Is The End Game? The U.S. has three paths it can take: Do nothing: The U.S. has allowed murderous tyrants to develop deliverable nuclear weapons before: see Stalin and Mao. It is possible that the U.S. could do the same for North Korea, essentially "setting in stone" the current status quo for lack of willingness to fight a second Korean war. Such an arrangement would put "rational actor theory" to the test - and so far that has been the case, with no second Korean war occurring. Attack, attack, attack! The North holds the South hostage, but Washington might decide someday to "shoot the hostage." For instance, if its own security needs outweigh its loyalty to its ally. Negotiate a solution: China's tentative cooperation on sanctions this year suggests that a major multilateral initiative is getting under way, comparable to the Iranian negotiations that concluded with the nuclear-monitoring and sanctions-lifting deal of 2015. The solution would likely consist of North Korea retaining its nuclear capability but admitting some inspections and refraining from developing long-range missile capabilities. It would seek a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice as well as sanctions relief and economic aid. Chart 12The Great East Asian Powder Keg What is wrong with these options? First, the U.S. has not yet accepted the North as a nuclear-armed state. Trump's naval buildup this month was evidence of a policy change designed to increase pressure tactics, with the aim of getting a better (non-nuclear-armed) result. It is still believed that the North will use its nuclear deterrent as a cover to expand its campaign of military intimidation and coercion against sovereign states: it has a record of attacks on civilians, attempted assassinations, and acts of war, including but not limited to the Chonan sinking and Yeonpyeong Island shelling in 2010. As the North gains the ability to strike the U.S., any hostilities will become harder for the U.S. public and defense establishment to ignore. Moreover, doing nothing allows a nuclear-armed Korea to kick off a nuclear arms race in a region that is already developing into a powder keg (Chart 12). More generally, it reduces America's ability to shape outcomes regarding China. A preemptive strike, on the other hand, would devastate Seoul and deliver a shock to the global economy. It would destabilize the peninsula and call all alliances and relationships into question. This option is extremely unlikely unless the U.S. is attacked, believes it is about to be attacked, or sees one of its allies suffer a serious attack. Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise (Chart 13). Chart 13Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin Today the U.S. is similarly showing off its capabilities and willingness to use force to the North, thus establishing a "credible threat."16 The other actors are playing their parts. China is offering to assist with tougher sanctions than usual; South Korea is heading for a policy shift; Japan is raising alarms and demonstrating its lock-step with the U.S.; Russia is calling for calm and a return to talks. However, over time, diplomacy could be unsatisfactory if it merely approximates the first option of "doing nothing." This is likely North Korea's last chance to prove that it can be pragmatic. Bottom Line: Therefore we are at the critical phase - within say one-to-four years - in which the U.S. must decide whether to attack. Given the current heightened tensions, the danger zone consists of (1) the near-term, in which the U.S. is applying more pressure, tensions are spiking, and talks have not yet taken shape (2) the long term, when talks could fail. Conclusion The Korean peninsula is the site of a proxy battle between China and the U.S. However, China sees the dangers of a nuclear-armed North Korea and recognizes that its patronage has a strategic downside by provoking U.S. military intervention. Like Russia in the Iranian negotiations, it can be brought to the table if the U.S. is convincing in warning that it may take matters into its own hands. China's apparent decision to enforce sanctions on coal imports, combined with the U.S. aversion to preemptive strikes and South Korean political leftward tilt, make this new round of talks especially likely to occur. Japan also prefers North Korea to be a threat, but a contained threat, as it looks to normalize its defense posture yet avoid an economic destabilization. The threat in North Korea will be a convenient excuse for Prime Minister Abe to pursue his re-militarization agenda. Thus, over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its programs to create an uneasy modus vivendi, as with Iran. This would require a non-aggression nod from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. It could also bring economic engagement with all parties into focus, even though North Korea does not have as much economic resources to offer as Iran. It is looking to trade national security for national security. All of this has a limit, however. China will not cripple the North Korean economy or force out the regime. Remember that in the case of Iran it was only willing to go so far, and received a waiver for the Iranian oil sanctions - yet North Korea is even closer to its immediate security. Therefore the North's willingness to change its behavior - to demonstrate that it is a rational player if brought in from the cold - is critical to the effectiveness of negotiations. Trump's reelection prospects may also be critical. A lame duck Trump in 2020, in the face of another failed North Korea policy, could attempt a decisive action, especially if the North is belligerent. By contrast, there is very little risk that Japan will "go rogue" and attack North Korea - even less so than there was with Israel in the Iran talks. It is Trump who is playing the role of the unpredictable negotiator who might "go it alone." The U.S. will continue to make the military option credible in spite of Seoul's vulnerability to retaliation. Therefore any failure of negotiations will induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. The final question of whether the U.S. will attack may hinge on the fact that the U.S. has a potent form of nationalism in the country that could be directed against North Korea under certain circumstances, as has happened against other regimes like Vietnam and Iraq. A North Korean act of war, or even a suspected imminent act of war in certain scenarios, could prompt a wave of reaction. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and EM Equity Sector Strategy Joint Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017, Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Robert Daniel Wallace, "The Determinants Of Conflict: North Korea's Foreign Policy Choices, 1960-2011," doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University (2014), available at krex.k-state.edu. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Most notably, the South Korean foreign policy shift will likely put an end to the unified U.S.-Japan-Korea stonewalling of North Korea that has prevailed since 2008. If Moon Jae-In wins, in particular, it will call the U.S. THAAD missile system emplacement into question. It will also call into question the progress in Korea-Japan relations, which includes a Japanese attempt to settle the "comfort women" controversy and a notable military-cooperation and intelligence-sharing agreement. 8 Including letting it be known that they would simulate special-forces operations to strike at the leadership in Pyongyang and decapitate the regime. 9 China opposes THAAD because its radar will be able to penetrate deep into China's territory. More broadly, it opposes U.S. efforts to upgrade its military capabilities in the region or otherwise shift the regional balance of power. 10 Kim Il Sung Day, or the "Day of the Sun," is, like several regime holidays, a possible occasion for missile tests or other provocative actions or revelations. However, Pyongyang is rarely predictable. Faced with a notable display of force by the U.S., the North conducted a small missile test, which failed. Notably, it steered clear of testing another nuclear device, as predicted. More may be to come. 11 Please see W. J. Hennigan and Barbara Demick, "Trump administration faces few good military options in North Korea," April 14, 2017, available at www.latimes.com. 12 Please see Admiral Bill Gortney's comments: "Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 [ICBM] and shoot it at the homeland ... That is the way we think, and that's our assessment of the process," in Aaron Mehta, "US: N. Korean Nuclear ICBM Achievable," April 8, 2015, available at www.defensenews.com. In 2013, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that "in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that's ... why we're postured as we are today," quoted in "Hagel: North Korea Near 'Red Line,'" UPI, April 10, 2013, available at www.upi.com. See also Mark Landler, "North Korea Nuclear Threat Cited by James Clapper, Intelligence Chief," New York Times, February 9, 2016; Siegfried S. Hecker, "The U.S. Must Talk To North Korea," New York Times, January 12, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com; Jeff Seldin, "N. Korea Capable of Nuclear Strike at US, Military Leader Says," Voice of America, April 7, 2015, available at www.voanews.com. 13 Japan is especially likely to diverge from South Korea as a left-leaning government in Seoul will likely see relations decline far faster with Japan than with the U.S. Increasingly, Japan is concerned about North Korea's risk and is boosting its Self-Defense Forces and attempting to win popular support for controversial constitutional revisions that would ultimately have a bearing on national security posture. North Korea is both a real and a convenient threat at this time. 14 Please see "US sanctions Chinese company for alleged support of North Korea," The Guardian, September 26, 2016, available at www.theguardian.com; see also the Department of Commerce, "Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Announces $1.19 Billion Penalty For Chinese Company's Export Violations To Iran And North Korea," dated March 7, 2017, available at www.commerce.gov. 15 And Chinese state-owned companies are implicated in significant and recent military advances, such as the provision of Transporter-Erector-Launchers (TELs) for North Korea's mobile-launched ICBM prototypes. Please see Melissa Hanham, "North Korea's Procurement Network Strikes Again: Examining How Chinese Missile Hardware Ended Up In Pyongyang," Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 31, 2012, available at www.nti.org. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the Asian trade data imply. China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade but mainland's credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively pointing to a relapse its growth in general and imports in particular. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. In Turkey, reinstate the short TRY versus U.S. dollar and short bank stocks trades. Feature Economic data from China and Asian trade data have been strong of late. However, when one looks ahead, China's growth and imports are set to roll over decisively in the second half of the year, based on the credit and fiscal spending impulse (Chart I-1). This will hurt countries and industries that sell to China. This is why we believe commodities prices are in a broad topping-out phase. Commodities producers and Asian economies will again suffer materially. Any possible strength in U.S. and European growth will not offset the drag on EM growth emanating from China and lower commodities prices. As a result, having priced in a lot of good news, EM risk assets are at major risk of a selloff in absolute terms and are poised to underperform their DM counterparts over the next six months. Beware Of The Low Base Effect Asian trade data have been strong, but the magnitude of recovery has not been as large as implied by annual growth rates: Annual growth rates of export values in U.S. dollar terms have surged everywhere - in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China (Chart I-2A). Chart I-1China's Growth To Decelerate Again Chart I-2AHigh Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... Chart I-2B...Low Base In Early 2016 Chart I-2B depicts the level of export values in U.S. dollar terms. It is clear that dollar values of shipments remain well below their peak of several years ago. Looking at the annual rate of change is reasonable since it removes seasonality from the series. However, investors should be aware of the low base effect of late 2015 and early 2016 that has made these annual growth rates extraordinarily elevated in recent months. As for export volumes, Chart I-3 illustrates that volumes held up better than U.S. dollar values in late 2015, which is why they are now expanding at a moderate rate (i.e. they are not surging). In short, in the past 12 months there has been a major discrepancy between dollar values and volumes of Asian exports. Indeed, the V-shaped profile of Asian export growth rates has been partially due to price swings in tradable goods. Prices for steel and other metals as well as for petrochemical products and semiconductors dropped substantially in late 2015 and early 2016, and have rebounded materially from that low base since. Correspondingly, Asian export prices have rebounded considerably in percentage terms (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Chart I-4Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices In the U.S., the low base effect from a year ago is also present in manufacturing and railroad shipments. Both intermodal (container) and carload shipment volumes excluding petroleum and coal plunged in early 2016 and recovered considerably on an annual rate-of-change basis, from a low base (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Railroad Shipments ##br##Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 All told, the skyrocketing annual rate of change of Asian export values and other global trade series is exaggerated by the fact that global trade volume was sluggish and various tradable goods/commodities prices fell precipitously in the last quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016, thereby creating a base effect. We are not implying that there has been no genuine recovery in global trade. Indeed, there has been reasonable sequential recovery in global demand and trade. The point is that the sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the trade data imply. Importantly, China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade and the rebound in commodities prices. Hence, the outlook for China holds the key. Looking Ahead Looking forward, there are few reasons to worry about U.S. growth. Consumer spending is robust and core capital goods orders are recovering following a multi-year slump (Chart I-6). Nevertheless, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view is that global trade growth will decelerate again because China's one-off stimulus-driven recovery will soon reverse, causing the rest of EM to also suffer: In particular, the credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively; the indicator typically leads nominal GDP growth and mainland imports by six months, as exhibited in Chart I-1 on page 1. As Chinese import volume relapses again, economies and sectors selling to China will suffer. Chart I-7 demonstrates China's credit and fiscal spending impulses separately. Chart I-6U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk Chart I-7China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses The credit impulse is the second derivative of outstanding corporate and household credit.1 It does not take much of a slowdown in credit growth for the second derivative, credit impulse, to roll over and then turn negative. Remarkably, narrow (M1) and broad (M2) money as well as banks' RMB loan growth have all slowed in recent months (Chart I-8). Non-bank (shadow banking) credit growth remains stable (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Yet given that the PBoC's recent tightening has targeted shadow banking activities, it is a matter of time before shadow banking credit also decelerates meaningfully. To assess real-time strength in China's economic activity, we monitor prices of various commodities trading in China. Chart I-9 demonstrates that these commodities prices have lately plunged. Chart I-8China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart I-9Plunging Commodities Prices To be sure, commodities prices are influenced not only by final demand but also by other factors such as supply, inventory swings and investor/trader positioning. We use these data as one among many inputs in our analysis. Bottom Line: Money/credit growth has rolled over and will continue to downshift, causing the current recovery underway in China to falter. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. Market-Based Indicators Financial asset prices often lead economic data. Therefore, one cannot rely on economic data releases to time turning points in financial markets. We watch and bring to investors' attention price signals from various segments of financial markets to corroborate our investment themes and economic analysis. Presently, there are several indicators flashing warning signals for EM risk assets: The plunge in iron ore prices warrants attention as it has historically correlated with EM equities and industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) (Chart I-10). The commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of CAD, AUD and NZD - also points to an end of the rally in EM share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Chart I-11EM Stocks Have Defied ##br##Rollover In Commodities Currencies It appears these long-term correlations have broken down in the past several weeks. We suspect this is due to hefty fund flows into EM. In the short term, the flows could overwhelm fundamentals and prompt financial variables that have historically been correlated to temporarily diverge. However, flows can refute fundamentals for a time, but not forever. It is impossible to time a reversal or magnitude of flows as there is no comprehensive set of data on global investor positioning across various financial markets. The message of a potential relapse in Chinese imports is being reinforced by commodities currencies that lead global export volume growth, and are pointing to weakness in global trade in the second half of this year (Chart I-12). The latest erosion in the commodities currencies has occurred even though the U.S. dollar has been soft and U.S. TIPS yields have not risen at all. This makes this price signal even more important. Oil prices have recovered to their recent highs, but share prices of global oil companies have not confirmed the rebound (Chart I-13). When such a divergence occurs between spot commodities prices and respective equity sectors, the spot prices typically converge toward the equity market. This leads us to argue that oil prices will head south pretty soon. Chart I-12Commodities Currencies ##br##Lead Global Trade Cycles Chart I-13Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed ##br##The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices The average stock (an equally-weighted equity index) is underperforming the market cap-weighted index in both the EM universe and the U.S. equity market (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally This usually occurs in two instances: (1) the rally is losing steam and narrowing to large market-cap stocks; and/or (2) the rally is being fueled by flows into ETFs that must allocate money based on market cap. Narrowing breadth of the rally is a warning signal of a top, albeit the precise timing is tricky. Bottom Line: There are several market-based indicators that herald an imminent top in EM share prices, commodities prices and other risk assets. Stay put. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Deceitful Stability Turkey held a constitutional referendum that dramatically expands the powers of the presidency on April 16. The proposed 18 amendments passed with a 51.41% majority and a high turnout of 85%. As with all recent Turkish referenda and elections, the results reveal a sharply divided country between the Aegean coastal regions and the Anatolian heartland, the latter being a stronghold of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Is Turkey Now A Dictatorship? First, some facts. Turkey has not become a dictatorship, as some Western press alleged. Yes, presidential powers have expanded. In particular, we note that: The president is now both a head of state and government and has the power to appoint government ministers; The president can issue decrees, however, the parliament has the ability to abrogate them through the legislative process; The president can call for new elections, however, they need three-fifths of the parliament to agree to the new election; The president has wide powers to appoint judges. What the media is not reporting is that the parliament can remove or modify any state of emergency enacted by the president. In addition, removing a presidential veto appears to be exceedingly easy, with only an absolute majority (not a super-majority) of votes needed. As such, our review of the constitutional changes is that Turkey is most definitely not a dictatorship. Yes, President Erdogan has bestowed upon the presidency much wider powers than the current ceremonial position possesses. However, the amendments also create a trap for future presidents. If the president should face a parliament ruled by an opposition party, they would lose much of their ability to govern. The changes therefore approximate the current French constitution, which is a semi-presidential system. Under the French system, the president has to cohabitate with the parliament. This appears to be the case with the Turkish constitution as well. Bottom Line: Turkish constitutional referendum has expanded the powers of the presidency, but considerable checks remain. If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) were ever to lose parliamentary control, President Erdogan would become entrapped by the very constitution he just passed. Is Turkey Now Stable? The market reacted to the results of the referendum with a muted cheer. First, we disagree with the market consensus that President Erdogan will feel empowered and confident following the constitutional referendum. This is for several reasons. For one, the referendum passed with a slim majority. Even if we assume (generously) that it was a clean win for the government, the fact remains that the AKP has struggled to win over 50% of the vote in any election it has contested since coming to power in 2002 (Chart II-1). Turkey is a deeply divided country and a narrow win in a constitutional referendum is not going to change this. Chart II-1AKP Versus Other Parties In Turkish Elections Second, Erdogan is making a strategic mistake by giving himself more power. It will also focus the criticism of the public on the presidency and himself if the economy and geopolitical situation surrounding Turkey gets worse. If the buck now stops with Erdogan, it also means that all the blame will go to him as well. We therefore do not expect Erdogan to push away from populist economic and monetary policies. In fact, we could see him double down on unorthodox fiscal and monetary policies as protests mount against his rule. While he has expanded control over the army, judiciary, and police, he has not won over support of the major cities on the Aegean coast, which not only voted against his constitutional referendum but also consistently vote against AKP rule. That said, opposition to AKP remains in disarray. As such, there is no political avenue for opposition to Erdogan. The problem is that such an arrangement raises the probability that the opposition takes the form of a social movement and protest. We would therefore caution investors that a repeat of the Gezi Park protests from 2013 could be likely, especially if the economy takes a stumble. Bottom Line: The referendum has not changed the facts on the ground. Turkey remains a deeply divided country. Erdogan will continue to feel threatened by the general sentiment on the ground and thus continue to avoid taking any painful structural reforms. We believe that economic populism will remain the name of the game. What To Watch? We would first and foremost watch for any sign of protest over the next several weeks. Gezi Park style unrest would hurt Erdogan's credibility. Given his penchant to equate any dissent with terrorism, President Erdogan is very likely to overreact to any sign of a social movement rising in Turkey to oppose him. It is not our baseline case that the constitutional referendum will motivate protests, but it is a risk investors should be concerned with. Next election is set for November 2019 and the constitutional changes will only become effective at that point (save for provisions on the judiciary). Investors should watch for any sign that Erdogan or AKP's popularity is waning in the interim. A failure to secure a majority in parliament could entrap Erdogan in an institutional fight with the legislature that creates a constitutional crisis. Chart II-2Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey ##br##Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Relations with the EU remain an issue as well. Erdogan will likely further deepen divisions in the country if he goes ahead and makes a formal break with the EU, either by reinstituting the death penalty or holding a referendum on EU accession process. Erdogan's hostile position towards the EU should be seen from the perspective of his own insecurity as a leader: he needs an external enemy in order to rally support around his leadership. We would recommend that clients ignore the rhetoric. Turkey depends on Europe far more than any other trade or investment partner (Chart II-2). If Turkey were to lash out at the EU by encouraging migration into Europe, for example, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Nonetheless, Ankara's brinkmanship and anti-EU rhetoric will likely continue. It is further evidence of the regime's insecurity at home. Bottom Line: The more that Erdogan captures power within the institutions he controls, the greater his insecurities will become. This is for two reasons. First, he will increase the risk of a return of social movement protests like the Gezi Park event in 2013. Second, he will become solely responsible for everything that happens in Turkey, closing off the possibility to "pass the buck" to the parliament or the opposition when the economy slows down or a geopolitical crisis emerges. As such, we see no opening for genuine structural reform or orthodox policymaking. Turkey will continue to be run along a populist paradigm. Investment Strategy On January 25th 2017, we recommended that clients take profits on the short positions in Turkish financial assets. Today, we recommend re-instating these short positions, specifically going short TRY versus the U.S. dollar and shorting Turkish bank stocks. The central bank's net liquidity injections into the banking system have recently been expanded again (Chart II-3). As we have argued in past,2 this is a form of quantitative easing and warrants a weaker currency. To be more specific, even though the overnight liquidity injections have tumbled, the use of the late liquidity money market window has gone vertical. This is largely attributed to the fact that the late liquidity window is the only money market facility that has not been capped by the authorities in their attempt to tighten liquidity when the lira was collapsing in January. The fact remains that Turkish commercial banks are requiring continuous liquidity and the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) is supplying it. Commercial banks demand liquidity because they continue growing their loan books rapidly. Bank loan and money growth remains very strong at 18-20% (Chart II-4). Such extremely strong loan growth means that credit excesses continue to be built. Chart II-3Turkey: Central Bank ##br##Renewed Liquidity Injections Chart II-4Turkey: Money/Credit ##br##Growth Is Too Strong Besides, wages are growing briskly - wages in manufacturing and service sector are rising at 18-20% from a year ago (Chart II-5, top panel). Meanwhile, productivity growth has been very muted. This entails that unit labor costs are mushrooming and inflationary pressures are more entrenched than suggested by headline and core consumer price inflation. It seems Turkey is suffering from outright stagflation: rampant inflationary pressures with a skyrocketing unemployment rate (Chart II-5, bottom panel) The upshot of strong credit/money and wage growth as well as higher inflationary pressures is currency depreciation. Excessive credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand at a time when the current account deficit is already wide. This will maintain downward pressure on the exchange rate. The currency has been mostly flat year-to-date despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars (Chart II-6). Without this support from the CBT, the lira would be much weaker than it currently is. Chart II-5Turkey: Stagflation? Chart II-6Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX ##br##Reserves Are Being Depleted That said, the CBT's net foreign exchange rates (excluding commercial banks' foreign currency deposits at the CBT) are very low - they stand at US$ 12 billion and are equal to 1 month of imports. Therefore, the central bank has little capacity to defend the lira by selling its own U.S. dollar. Chart II-7Short Turkish Bank Stocks We also believe there is an opportunity to short Turkish banks outright. The currency depreciation will force interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, top panel). Historically, this has always been negative for banks' stock prices as net interest margins will shrink (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Surprisingly, bank share prices in local currency terms have lately rallied despite the headwinds from higher interbank rates and the rollover in net interest rate margin. This creates an attractive opportunity to go short again. Bottom Line: Re-instate a short position in the currency. In addition, short Turkish bank stocks. Dedicated EM equity as well as fixed-income and credit portfolios should continue underweighting Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses", dated August 30, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Turkey's Monetary Demagoguery", dated June 1, 2016, link available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

I am honored to join BCA Research as Senior Vice President of the U.S. Investment Strategy service. I have been researching and writing about the economy and financial markets for more than 30 years. I joined BCA Research from LPL Financial in Boston, MA where I served as the firm’s Chief Economic Strategist. At LPL I helped to manage more than $120 billion in client assets and provided more than 14,000 financial advisors and 700+ financial institutions with insights on asset allocation, global financial markets and economics. Prior to LPL, I served in similar functions at PNC Advisors, Stone & McCarthy Research, Prudential Securities, and the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, DC. I look forward to meeting you and providing quality research in the years to come. John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy Highlights We are not changing our view on Treasury markets or our stocks over bonds call despite the news that the Fed will begin shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The Fed's action is marginally dollar positive. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. Retail sales and industrial production have accelerated, although "hard" data on business capital spending remains weak. We introduce our Bond Duration checklist this week. These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. We continue to favor U.S. equites over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year. We introduce the BCA Beige Book Monitor this week. This metric provides a quantitative look at the qualitative, or "soft" data in the Fed's Beige Book. The Beige Book is due out Wednesday, April 19. Feature Chart 1Weak Data And More Weighed ##br##On Risk Assets U.S. stocks stumbled and Treasury yields slumped last week with the 10-year Treasury yield hitting a 2017 low. The drop in yields came despite news from the FOMC that the Fed is prepared to shrink its balance sheet later this year, a bit sooner than the market expected. Comments from Fed Chair Yellen - who expressed concern that the Fed's independence is "under threat"- should have jolted the bond market, but didn't. Not yet at least. Geopolitics played a role in the week's market action as well, the main culprits being upcoming French elections, the aftermath of President Trump's missile attack on Syria and ongoing tensions in North Korea. The looming Q1 earnings reporting season weighed on risk assets as well. The dollar ended lower last week. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he prefers a weak dollar. Those comments and the tepid data helped to offset the safe-haven bid generated by the geopolitical events of the week (Chart 1). The "hard" vs "soft" data debate will continue this week and likely for some time thereafter. "Hard" data on housing and manufacturing for March as well as the U.S. leading indicator are due out this week. Of course, the ultimate set of "hard" data is the corporate earnings data. Nearly 70 S&P 500 firms will report Q1 results and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond this week. "Soft" data on the PMI, Philly Fed and Empire State manufacturing sector for April will undoubtedly keep the debate going. Our view is that the hard data will catch up with the upbeat surveys in the U.S. This week we review the key economic indicators for the major advanced economies, which highlight that the global growth acceleration remains on track. We also introduce a Duration Checklist designed to help separate "signal from noise" in the bond market. Most of the items on the Checklist remain bond-bearish. Fed plans to shrink its balance sheet is not particularly negative for bond prices, but it certainly won't be supportive. The main risk to our bond-bearish view remains geopolitics, including the first round voting and results in the French election due on Sunday, April 23. Balance Sheet Bedlam? Maybe Not The release of Minutes from the FOMC's March meeting contained a robust discussion of the Fed's balance sheet. Until recently, most market participants had assumed that the Fed would maintain the size of its balance sheet via reinvesting through at least late 2017/early 2018. The latest FOMC minutes suggest that, assuming the economy continues to track the Fed's forecast, the FOMC will allow its balance sheet to shrink this year. The FOMC will achieve this by ceasing reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. No decision has been made about whether the reinvestments will end all at once or will be phased out over time (tapered). Chart 2 shows that when QE1 ended in 2010 and QE2 ended in 2011, U.S. equities underperformed bonds. It's important to note, however, that underperformance didn't occur in a vacuum. The European debt crisis, the U.S. rating downgrade and debt ceiling debates all weighed on risk assets after QE1 and QE2 ended. Other factors played a role as well, such as weak economic growth and policy uncertainty. Amid QE3, U.S. equities surged in 2013, returning 32.4%, while bonds fell 8.5%. But in late 2013, the Fed announced that purchases would be tapered over the course of 2014. QE3 finally ended in late 2014. Stocks and bonds battled it out over 2014 and 2015, with stocks beating bonds by 3%. Chart 2Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Bottom Line: Our view remains that Fed balance sheet run-off won't have a big impact on Treasury yields, although may lead to a widening of MBS spreads. What matters more for Treasury yields than the size of the balance sheet is the expected path of short rates. As for equities, while geopolitical risks are ever-present, the U.S. economy is in far better shape today than it was when QE1, QE2 and QE3 ended. U.S. corporate earnings are pointing higher as well. While we've clearly entered a new part in the Fed cycle, the news on the Fed's balance sheet does not change our view that U.S. stocks will outperform bonds this year. All else equal, the dollar should get a small boost from a shrinking Fed balance sheet, supporting our view that the dollar will rise 10% this year. Overplaying The Soft Data And Underplaying Geopolitics...In 2018 Chart 3Global Pick-Up On Track Traders and investors have been giving up on the global reflation story of late, sending the 10-year Treasury yield down to the bottom end of this year's trading range. Missile strikes, upcoming French elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea have lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds. At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts are growing over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and a few recent U.S. data releases have disappointed. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of safe-haven demand for bonds, especially related to North Korea and Syria. However, our geopolitical team holds a high-conviction view that angst over Eurozone elections this year are overblown. The Italian election in 2018 is more of a threat. While we cannot rule out an even stronger safe-haven bid from developing in the coming weeks, the global cyclical economic backdrop remains negative for government bond markets. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4.7% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart 3). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession, which was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart 4). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the three months, rising 5.2% at annual rates (Chart 5). The weak spot has been in capital goods orders (Chart 3). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near to zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart 3, third panel). Nonetheless, improving CEO sentiment, strengthening profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will "catch up" in the coming months. Chart 4Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart 5U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans could fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital expenditures. Duration Checklist: What We're Watching BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently introduced a "Duration Checklist" designed to keep us focused on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise (Table 1).1 These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the top section of the Checklist (Chart 6). All four of these indicators appear to have topped out except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past. Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth for at least the near term. Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds Chart 6Some Warning From Leading Indicators The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is concerning. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The remainder of the items on the checklist are related to growth, inflation pressure, central bank stance, investor risk-taking behavior and bond market technicals. We are focusing on the U.S. and Eurozone at the moment because we believe these two economies will be the main driver of global yields over the next 12 months. In the U.S., the Fed is tightening and market expectations are overly benign on the pace of rate hikes in the coming years. Upside pressure on global yields should intensify later this year, when the ECB announces the next "tapering" of its asset purchase program. All of the economic growth, inflation pressure and risk-seeking indicators on the Checklist warrant a check mark for the U.S., although this is not the case for the Eurozone inflation indicators. From a technical perspective, the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in global bond prices. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. Bottom Line: A number of political pressure points and some modest U.S. data disappointments have triggered an unwinding of short bond positions. Nonetheless, the global manufacturing revival and growth impulse remain in place, and the majority of items on our Checklist suggest that the recent bond rally represents a consolidation phase rather than a trend reversal. Keep duration short of benchmark within fixed-income portfolios. Favor Stocks Over Junk Bonds Table 2A New Trend In Junk Vs. Stocks? We continue to favor U.S. equities over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. But what about U.S. equities versus high-yield bonds? As a reminder, favoring corporate bonds over equities was a long-running BCA theme during the early stages of the economic recovery.We noted that corporate bonds were likely to outperform equities in a prescient Special Report published in late-2008,2 and we continued to favor corporate bonds until late-2012 when we shifted towards strong dividend-paying stocks. Table 2 highlights that our corporate bond vs equity recommendations have worked out well over the past several years. The table presents the annual total return for the S&P 500 and high-yield corporate bonds (as well as the difference between the two), and it shows that the former underperformed the latter from 2008 to 2011 (and again in 2012 in risk-adjusted terms). However, stocks materially outperformed high-yield bonds from 2013-2015, which followed our recommendation to favor the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index over corporate bonds in our November 2012 Special Report.3 But Table 2 also shows that the trend of stock outperformance reversed last year, with high-yield bonds having somewhat outpaced the S&P 500 in total return terms. Does this imply that investors are witnessing the beginning of a new uptrend in corporate bond outperformance versus equities? In our view, the answer is 'no'. Chart 7 presents our simple framework for the relative performance of stocks vs high-yield corporate bonds, which suggests that investors should favor the former over the latter. Panel 1 highlights that the trend in stocks vs high-yield is generally the same as that vs 10-year Treasuries, with a few notable exceptions of sustained difference. The first exception was from 2002 to 2004, when stocks significantly outperformed government bonds but were flat vs high-yield. The second exception occurred during the early part of this expansion, which again saw high-yield corporate bonds post equity-like returns. Chart 7Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Panel 2 suggests that both of these circumstances were fueled by a substantial high-yield valuation advantage over stocks. The panel illustrates the gap between the speculative-grade corporate bond yield-to-worst and the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield, which was elevated and fell materially in both of the cases of sustained divergence shown in panel 1. The key point for investors is that last year's outperformance of junk bonds is unlikely to continue. While the compression of the junk/stock yield gap did lead the former to outperform last year, the gap was not high to begin with and is currently not that far away from its historical lows. This suggests that there is no reason to expect the stock/junk relative performance trend to deviate from the overall stock/government bond trend, which we expect to rise further over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should continue to favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year (but favor both over Treasuries and cash). Introducing The BCA Beige Book Monitor Chart 8BCA Beige Book Monitor: ##br##A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data The Fed's Beige Book is released eight times a year, two weeks ahead of each FOMC meeting. It was first released in 1983. The Beige Book's predecessor was the Red Book, first produced in 1970. The Beige Book itself got a makeover from the Fed in early 2017. The Fed changed the way the information was presented across the 12 Fed districts, but, according to the Fed, the Beige Book will continue to provide "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." In addition to the Beige Book, FOMC officials also review what is now known as the "Teal Book" at each meeting. The Teal Book combined the "Green Book" - a review of current economic and financial conditions - and the "Blue Book"- which provided context for FOMC members on monetary policy actions. As noted in the Fed's own description, the Beige Book is "soft data". In discussing the Beige Book, the financial press often notes the number of districts where growth is expanding and contracting or describes the pace of overall activity (modest, moderate etc). The BCA Beige Book Monitor takes a more quantitative approach to all the qualitative data in the Beige Book. We began by searching the document for all the words we could think of that signify strength: Strong, strength, rise, increase, accelerate, fast, expand, advance, positive, robust, optimistic, up, etc. We then counted up all the words that denote weakness: Weak, fell, slow, decelerate, decrease, decline, soft, negative, pessimistic, down, contract, etc. Next, we subtracted the number of weak words from the strong words to calculate the BCA Beige Book Monitor. The Monitor begins in 2005, so it covers the time period from the middle of the 2001-2007 expansion, through the Great Recession (2007-2009) and the recovery since 2009. A more streamlined approach, using the words "strong" and "strength" (and their derivatives like stronger, strengthened, etc) as proxy for all the strong words and the word "weak" as a proxy for all the weak words, showed the same results. We adopted this simpler approach. Chart 8, panels 1 and 2, shows the BCA Beige Book Monitor versus real GDP and CEO Confidence. The BCA Beige Book monitor does a good job explaining GDP, but it is more timely. The Monitor leads CEO confidence, especially around turning points. We intend to do more work with the Beige Book Monitor and present it to you in future editions of this publication. We also track mentions of other key words in the Beige Book. For example changes in mentions of "inflation" words in the Beige book track, and sometimes lead, core inflation (Panel 3). Mentions of the "strong dollar" track the dollar itself, although tends to be lagging (Panel 4). We'll be watching for those inflation words and mentions of the dollar in the Beige Book this week. The Beige Book will also help to shed some qualitative light on the recent weakness in capital spending and C&I loans. Has the uncertainty about the timing, scope and scale of Trump's legislative agenda (taxes, infrastructure and the repeal of Obamacare, etc) had an impact on corporate spending or borrowing? We'll find out this week. Bottom Line: Although technically it is "soft" data, the Beige Book is a major input on monetary policy decision making for the FOMC. As we showed last week, the rise in "inflation" words in the Beige Book has certainly captured the Fed's attention, and confirms the "hard" we've seen on inflation. The next FOMC meeting is on May 2-3, and neither we nor the consensus expects a hike at that meeting. Despite the apparent flare-up in geopolitics last week and the run of disappointing economic data, we continue to expect the Fed to raise rates 2 more times in 2017. 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 Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Value And The Cycle Favor Corporate Debt Over Equities," dated November 14, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Search For Yield Continues: Aristocrats Or High Yield?" dated November 5, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights An investment's long-term attractiveness depends on the trade-off between its expected long-term return and its risk of suffering an intermediate loss. On this risk-adjusted basis: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other... ...but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Feature The English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" in his Biographia Literaria published in 1817. It describes the sacrifice of reason and logic to believe the unbelievable. Coleridge suggested that if he could instil a "semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement about the implausibility of the narrative in order to enjoy it. Today, it feels like financial market prices are relying on the willing suspension of disbelief. At our client meetings, almost everybody disbelieves that current valuations allow developed market equities to generate attractive long-term returns. Yet many investors are willing to suspend this disbelief, at least for the time being. Our own return forecasts justify the disbelief (Chart I-2). In Outlook 2017, Shifting Regimes,1 my colleague and BCA Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, published our long-term nominal return forecasts for the major asset classes. Allowing for market moves since publication, four of those 10-year annualised total returns2 now stand at: Chart I-2Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns European equities3 5.0% U.S. equities4 3.2% U.S. 10-year T-bond 2.3% Euro area 10-year sovereign bond5 1.2% With annual inflation expected at 2%, these numbers imply paltry real returns from mainstream investments over the coming decade. Still, in terms of ranking relative attractiveness, it might appear reasonable to follow the sequence of returns:6 European equities; U.S. equities; the U.S. 10-year T-bond; and then the euro area 10-year sovereign bond. But that sequence would be wrong - at least in the medium term. The key point is that the four investments are not equally risky. For a riskier asset, investors should expect today's price to generate a higher long-term return as compensation for the extra risk of intermediate loss. Put another way, a risky asset must offer a higher long-term return than a less risky asset for an investor to be indifferent between them. If it doesn't, the danger is that the price will adjust (down) at some point until it does. European Equity Valuations Must Allow For Euro Breakup Risk Consider European equities versus U.S. equities. The sovereign bond market is discounting a 5% annual risk of euro break-up (Chart I-3). This shows up as a discount on German bund yields, because in that tail-event a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. But for the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum (Chart I-4). Unfortunately, for the aggregate European stock market, the risk does not cancel out. If the euro broke up, European equities would suffer a much greater drawdown than other markets. Recall that at the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year (Chart I-5). In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30%. So assuming a 5% annual risk, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5% excess annual return over U.S. equities. Chart I-3The Bond Market Is Discounting##br## A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... Chart I-4...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread##br## Between Italy And Germany Chart I-5In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx ##br##Underperformed By 25% There is also the issue of the post-2016 bailout rules for European banks. At a stroke, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) has made European bank equity investment more risky. In the event of a bank failure, investors must now suffer the first losses - including full wipe-out - before governments can step in. Combining this with the risk of euro breakup, the 1.8% excess annual return that we expect from the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500 makes European equity valuations look fair, rather than attractive, on a relative risk-adjusted basis. That said, the good news is that if the risk of euro area breakup gradually fades, it would permit a healthy re-rating of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. For example, if the annual risk of breakup declined from 5% to 1%, it would equate to a 12% outperformance. But as the greatest political risk to the euro now emanates from Italy - and not the upcoming French Presidential Election - we recommend playing this re-rating opportunity closer to, or after, Italy's next general election.7 Equity Valuations Reliant On "Willing Suspension Of Disbelief" Now consider equities versus bonds. An expected 3.2% annual return from the S&P500 versus a 2.3% 10-year T-bond yield implies an ex-ante 10-year equity risk premium (ERP) of just 0.9% (Chart I-6). This is significantly lower than the 135-year average of 5% and even the post war average of 2.5%8 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero Chart I-6In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same What can justify the "willing suspension of disbelief" that permits today's abnormally low ERP? There are three arguments. All have Coleridge's "semblance of truth" but are ultimately flawed. Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities##br## Suffered Much More Than Bonds First, it is argued that the ERP should be low because bonds have become more risky. With 10-year bond yields so low, bond prices have limited upside but substantial downside. The problem with this argument is that equities are a much longer duration asset than a 10-year bond, so if inflation did take hold, equities would suffer the much greater drawdown - as they did in the 1970s (Chart I-7). Another counterargument is that bond yields have been this low on previous occasions in the past 135 years, but on those previous occasions the ex-ante ERP was not as depressed as it is today. Second, it is argued that the ERP should be low because central banks now have a tried and tested weapon - QE - which they can pull out at the slightest sign of trouble. Empirically, it might be true that QE did compress the ERP. But theoretically, it shouldn't. Even Ben Bernanke told us at our 2015 New York Conference that QE is nothing more than a signalling mechanism for interest rate policy. So it works by compressing bond yields rather than the ERP. In this sense, justifying a low ERP with QE is a worry rather than a hope. Third, and most recently, it is argued that the surprise arrival of the Trump administration is a game changer for investments - structurally positive for equities, structurally negative for bonds. The jury is out on this. But given the speed of market moves, our sense is that is the hope of fast-moving momentum traders. Slow-moving value investors are still on the side lines, waiting to see what - if anything - will really change. Mr. Market Is Little Short Of Silly In his 1949 seminal work, The Intelligent Investor Benjamin Graham, the grandfather of value investing, introduced us to a whimsical character called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market quotes a price for your investments, at which you can buy or sell. Sometimes, Mr. Market's idea of value seems plausible. At other times: "Mr. Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you little short of silly." The point of Graham's allegory is that investors should not cheerlead the market come what may. Mr. Market will not always quote you an attractive price; sometimes he will quote you a very unattractive price (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Mr. Market Will Not Always Quote You An Attractive Price "At which the long-term investor certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell." Today, when we see the ugly long-term returns offered by Mr. Market and we risk-adjust for potential drawdowns, we conclude: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other, but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on December 20, 2016 and available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 Nominal local currency returns including income. 3 Outlook 2017 showed "Other (non-U.S.) developed equities" but this aligns with our forecast for European equities. 4 Since Outlook 2017 was published, equity markets are up around 5%. So 10-year return forecasts have been reduced by around (5/10) = 0.5%. 5 Euro area weighted average 10-year yield weighted by sovereign issue size. 6 This assumes investors can cheaply hedge currency exposure, as is the case now. 7 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Service Weekly Report titled "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018", dated April 12, 2017 and available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 In this report we define the ex-ante ERP at any point in time as the Shiller P/E's implied prospective 10-year equity return (see Chart 8) less the 10-year bond yield. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the sugar number 11 futures contract on the NYB-ICE exchange, with a profit target of 7%. Alternatively, a more hedged position is long sugar / short aluminium with a profit target of 10%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations