Global

Feature Table 1Recommended Allocation Don't Worry About The Tepid Data Risk assets are likely to continue to grind higher. Two of the catalysts we cited for this in our most recent Quarterly1 have half happened: European political risk is lifting now that Marine Le Pen looks most unlikely to win in the second round of the French presidential election (polls give her less than 40% of the vote); and the Trump administration announced its tax cut plan (which, though details are still sparse, we expect to be passed in some form this year). As a result, the MSCI All Country World Index hit a record high in late April and the S&P 500 is only 1% below its high. But both growth and inflation have surprised somewhat to the downside in the past couple of months. The Citi Economic Surprise Index for the U.S. has fallen sharply, though surprises remain fairly positive elsewhere (Chart 1).Q1 U.S. real GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of only 0.7%. This has pushed bond yields down (with the US Treasury 10-year yield falling back to 2.2%), consequently weakening the dollar. We are not unduly worried about the tepid data. It is mainly due to technical factors. Corporate loan growth in the U.S., for example (Chart 2), mostly reflects just the lagged effect of last year's slowdown on banks' willingness to lend, as well as energy companies repaying credit lines they tapped in early 2016 when short of working capital. The weakness in auto sales (Chart 3) is most likely caused by the end of the car replacement cycle which began in 2010, rather than reflecting any generalized deterioration in consumer behavior. Moreover, there seem to be problems with seasonal adjustment of data caused by the extreme swings in the economy in 2008 and 2009: Q1 has been the weakest quarter for U.S. GDP in six out of the past 10 years, and has on average been 2.3 ppts lower than Q2.2 There were no such distortions prior to 1996. Chart 1U.S. Growth Has Surprised To The Downside Chart 2Weaker Loan Growth Is Mostly Technical... Chart 3...And The Slowdown In Autos Is Just The End Of A Replacement Cycle A consequence of the wobbly data is that markets have become too complacent about the Fed raising rates, with futures markets now projecting only about 40 bps of hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 4). Our view is that wages will gradually move up this year, pushing core PCE inflation to 2% by year end, which will cause the Fed to raise rates twice before end-2017 and once early in 2018 (though the latter rise could be postponed if the Fed starts to reduce its balance-sheet and forgoes one quarter's hike to judge the impact of this on the market). By contrast, we do not see the ECB hiking before 2019 at the earliest, with ECB President Draghi reiterating that he sees core inflation staying low and remains concerned about the fragile banking systems in peripheral European markets and about Italian politics. We also believe Bank of Japan governor Kuroda when he says he has no plans to change the BoJ's 0% target for the 10-year JGB yield. All this implies that the dollar is likely to appreciate further in the next 12 months as interest rate spreads widen (Chart 5). Chart 4Fed Is Likely To Hike Faster Than This Chart 5Interest Differentials Suggest Further Dollar Strength The next catalyst for equities to rise further could be earnings. Q1 U.S. earnings are surprising significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 11.7% year on year and 75% of companies beating analysts' estimates.3 BCA's proprietary model suggests that S&P 500 operating earnings this year could grow by over 20% (Chart 6). If anything, upside surprises to earnings have been even stronger in the euro zone and Japan. With none of the standard indicators signaling any risk of recession over the next 12 months (Chart 7), we remain overweight equities versus bonds. We continue to warn, though, that the Goldilocks scenario of healthy growth and stable inflation may not last for long. A combination of tax cuts, wage growth accelerating as labor participation hits a ceiling, and the Fed falling behind the curve (perhaps when President Trump - given that he recently confessed "I do like a low interest rate policy" - appoints a dovish replacement for Janet Yellen as Fed Chair) could cause inflation to rise unexpectedly next year, forcing the Fed to raise rates sharply, triggering a recession in 2019. Chart 6U.S. Earnings Could Grow 20% This Year Chart 7No Sign Of A Recession On The Horizon Equities: In a risk-on environment, euro zone equities should continue to outperform, due to their higher beta (averaging 1.3 against global equities over the past 20 years, compared to 0.9 for the U.S.), more cyclical earnings, and modestly cheaper valuations (forward PE is at a 18.9% discount to the U.S.). Japanese equities should also do well as interest rates rise again globally (except in Japan where the BoJ will stick to its 0% yield target on 10-year bonds), which should push down the yen and boost earnings. We remain overweight Japanese equities on a currency-hedged basis. We are underweight EM equities, which are likely to be weighed down over the next 12 months by the stronger dollar, and by a slowdown in China which should cause commodity prices to fall. Fixed Income: We expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end: a pickup in real growth, slightly higher inflation and two more Fed hikes can easily add 70 bps to the yield over the next eight months. Euro zone yields will also rise, though not by as much. This implies a negative return from G7 sovereign bonds for the first time since 1994. We continue to prefer corporate credit, with a preference for U.S. investment-grade debt over high-yield bonds (which have stretched valuations) and over European corporate debt (which will be negatively affected by the tapering of ECB purchases next year). Currencies: As described above, we do not believe that the dollar appreciation which began in 2014 is over, due to divergences in monetary policy. We would look for a further 5-10% appreciation of the dollar over the coming 12 months, though the rise is likely to be bigger against the yen and emerging market currencies than against the euro. Commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar also look vulnerable and overvalued. The British pound will be driven by the vicissitudes of the Brexit negotiations in the short-run but looks undervalued in the long run if, as we expect, the EU eventually agrees a moderately satisfactory trade deal with the U.K. Commodities: We continue to believe that the equilibrium level for oil is $55 a barrel, and that an extension of the OPEC production agreement beyond June and a drawdown in inventories in the second half will bring WTI crude back to that level - with the risk of even $60-65 temporarily if there are any unforeseen supply disruptions. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, which will be hurt by a mild withdrawal of monetary and fiscal stimulus in China. Following its 6.9% GDP print in Q1, Chinese growth is likely to slow moderately. However, with the Party Congress coming up in the fall, growth will not be allowed to slow excessively - and, indeed, there are signs that central government spending has begun to accelerate recently (Chart 8). We remain positive on gold as a long-term hedge against the tail risk of inflation. As our recent Special Report on Safe Havens demonstrated,4 gold has historically provided good returns during recessions, particularly those associated with high inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8China Is Withdrawing Stimulus - Or Is It? Chart 9Gold Glisters When Inflation Rises Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: No Reasons To Turn Cautious," dated 3 April 2017, available at gaa.research.com 2 For detailed analysis of the problems with seasonal adjustment, please see U.S. Investment Strategy, "Spring Snapback?" dated April 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 So far about half of U.S. companies have reported. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?" dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

Dear Client, In addition to this abbreviated Weekly Report, I sent you a Special Report earlier today written by my colleague Mark McClellan of our monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication. Following up on many of the themes discussed in our latest Quarterly Strategy Outlook, Mark makes a convincing case that most of the factors that have suppressed global interest rates since the financial crisis could begin to unwind or even reverse over the coming years. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature Davos Man Is Happy Chart 1Macron Leading Le Pen Populist forces have been in retreat of late. First came the Austrian presidential elections, which saw voters reject a populist right-wing challenger in favor of a former Green Party leader who pledged to be an "open-minded, liberal-minded, and above all a pro-European president." Then came the Dutch elections, where Prime Minister Mark Rutte won more seats than the maverick Geert Wilders. Last week the pound surged after U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May called for a fresh election. May's announcement was designed to expand the Conservative Party's majority, thus neutralizing the ability of a few hardline Tories to scuttle a Brexit deal. 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. This week we have the results of the first round of the French presidential elections. Despite the media's absurd characterization of Emmanuel Macron as an "outsider," the former government minister was, in fact, the establishment's dream candidate: pro-business and fervently Europhile. Current polls show Macron beating Le Pen in a runoff by 21 points (Chart 1). Finally, on the other side of the Atlantic, Donald Trump has caved on most of his populist campaign pledges. He agreed to drop his requests that Congress pay for a border wall with Mexico and defund Planned Parenthood. The move is likely to avert an imminent government shutdown. In addition, Trump backed off his pledge to scrap NAFTA. This follows on the heels of his decision not to label China as a "currency manipulator," something he had promised to do during the campaign. And to top it all off, Trump released a one-page tax plan with all the goodies the Republican establishment has been craving: Lower corporate and personal tax rates and the abolition of the estate tax. Risk Assets Will Benefit... Not surprisingly, global equities have responded positively to these developments. The MSCI All-Country World Index hit a record high this week (Chart 2). A rebound in corporate earnings is helping to propel stocks higher. Our global earnings model points to further upside for profits over the coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Equities At Record Highs Chart 3More Upside Ahead For Global Earnings The laggard remains the Treasury market. Trump's tax plan will add about $5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade above and beyond what the Congressional Budget Office is already projecting. Yet, the 10-year Treasury yield remains 30 basis points below where it was in early March. The market is pricing in just under two rate hikes over the next 12 months. This is below the Fed's guidance and our own expectations. We went short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract last week (Chart 4). Higher U.S. rate expectations should lead to a further widening of rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 5). Mario Draghi underscored yesterday that the ECB has no plans to remove monetary stimulus anytime soon. If anything, rising inflation expectations in the euro area on the back of a firming economy could lead to lower real yields there, putting downward pressure on the euro. Chart 6 shows that the market expects real U.S. five-year yields to be only 11 basis points higher than in the euro area in 2022.1 That seems too low to us, given the euro area's bleak demographics and high debt levels. We continue to see EUR/USD reaching parity later this year. Chart 4The Market Is Lowballing The Fed Chart 5Higher U.S. Rate Expectations Will Lead To Further Widening Of Rate Differentials Chart 6The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread ...But Populists Will Triumph In The End Steady growth and falling unemployment will reduce support for populist parties over the coming 12 months. This will help keep global equities in an uptrend. Beyond then, the clouds are likely to darken. We argued in our Q2 Strategy Outlook that global growth could begin to slow in the second half of next year.2 If that happens, support for mainstream political parties will fade. Structural forces will further bolster support for populist leaders. Chart 7 shows that Le Pen won the plurality of voters between the ages of 35 and 59. Young voters tilted towards Mélenchon, while older voters overwhelmingly went for Emmanuel Macron and François Fillon. If recent voting trends are any guide, the elderly of tomorrow will be more sympathetic to Le Pen than the elderly of today. Le Pen's populist message on the economy could resonate more with younger voters (indeed, Le Pen beat Macron among voters between the ages of 18 and 24). Chart 7Who Likes Le Pen? Meanwhile, worries about terrorism will undermine support for the establishment. There are 17,000 people on the French government's terrorist watch list, 2,000 of whom have fought in Syria and Iraq. Macron's feeble pledge to hire 10,000 additional police officers will do little to thwart future attacks. In the U.S., Trump's pivot towards the establishment wing of the Republican Party could prove to be short-lived. Most Republican voters have mixed feelings about Donald Trump the man. They voted for Trumpism, not Trump. Either Trump will start delivering on the promises that endeared him to blue-collar workers in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, or he will go down in flames in the next election. Bottom Line: Investors should overweight global equities in a balanced portfolio over the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure in the second half of next year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 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. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook: "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Dear Client, In addition to an abbreviated Weekly Report that you will receive later tonight, I am sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan of our monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication. Following up on many of the themes discussed in our latest Quarterly Strategy Outlook, Mark makes a convincing case that most of the factors that have suppressed global interest rates since the financial crisis could begin to unwind or even reverse over the coming years. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart 1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart 1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart 2Global Shifts In The Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart 2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart 3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart 3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart 3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart 4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart 2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart 5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart 6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart 4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart 5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart 6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart 7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart 8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart 7Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart 8Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart 9Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart 9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart 10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart 10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart 11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart 11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart 11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. Chart 11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The results are shown in Chart 12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart 12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Chart 13Demographics And Capex Requirements Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart 13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart 14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart 15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart 14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... Chart 15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: Table 1Key Secular Drivers The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table 1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook. Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart 16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart 17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart 16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart 17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household saving rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3, IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household saving rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e., savings across the household, government, and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014).

Special Report

The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart II-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart II-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart II-2Global Shifts In The ##br##Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart II-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart II-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart II-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart II-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart II-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart II-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart II-5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart II-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart II-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart II-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart II-6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart II-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart II-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart II-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart II-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart II-9Working-Age Population ##br##To Shrink In G7 And China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart II-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart II-10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart II-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart II-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. Chart II-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart II-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart II-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart II-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart II-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Chart II-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart II-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too Chart II-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart II-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart II-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart II-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table II-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table II-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Chart II-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart II-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Overall Duration: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. French Election: We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Feature Investors breathed a sigh of relief yesterday, after the French presidential election produced the most market-friendly result - a Macron-Le Pen matchup in the May 7 run-off. Pre-election polling showed that the pro-Europe reformer Macron and his En Marche ("On The Move") party would easily trounce the anti-Europe populist Le Pen in a head-to-head showdown. That outcome would eliminate the possibility of a confidence-shattering "Frexit" along the lines of last year's U.K. vote that could stall the current global economic expansion. Elevated political risks in Europe, and geopolitical risks in Syria and North Korea, have been a factor driving volatility higher, and bond yields lower, in recent weeks. There have also been some data disappointments in the U.S. that have occurred at the same time (Chart of the Week). It is difficult to tell which factor has been more important for government bond markets. The fact that yields jumped worldwide yesterday after the French election result and, more importantly, the lack of any serious repricing in global equity and credit markets alongside the recent pop in volatility, suggests that bond markets are likely not sniffing out a sustained growth slowdown. Government bond yields remain too low relative to underlying economic and inflation trends, and we continue to recommend below-benchmark duration exposure and above-benchmark allocations to corporate credit versus government bonds (especially in the U.S.). Falling Bond Yields: Some Shifting Expectations, But Not A Change In Trend The recent decline in global bond yields began in mid-March. The move in most of the major markets was largely driven by falling inflation expectations, with real yields staying relatively stable, although in the U.S. the split was more 50/50. Importantly, both the nominal 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund yield are bouncing off the bottom of their upward sloping trend channels that started in early 2016 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekA Series Of Unfortunate Events Chart 2Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact We see those upward trending channels as being the primary medium-term trend for bond yields. The recent pullback in yields has been the result of several individual factors that have occurred at the same time that are likely to reverse in the months ahead: Slower U.S. growth & inflation: The latest soft readings on U.S. retail sales and core CPI inflation are not consistent with the robust readings on business confidence and manufacturing activity, as well as the accelerating trend in U.S. corporate profit growth that our models expect will continue in the coming quarters (Chart 3). The latter is being driven by significant improvements in corporate pricing power that are helping boost profit margins, according to our equity strategists (bottom panel).1 We find it hard to believe that there can be a prolonged slowdown in the U.S. economy if earnings growth is accelerating and firms are not forced to cut back on hiring and investment to preserve profitability. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is now only discounting 38bps of rate increases over the next year, Treasuries look expensive as the Fed is likely to deliver at least 50bps worth of hikes by year-end and the large short positions in the Treasury market have been unwound (Chart 4). Chart 3The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over Chart 4Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Softer U.S. wage inflation: Some of that boost to U.S. profit margins is also due to the recent slower pace of wage growth, which we do not expect to continue given the tightness in the U.S. labor market and the continued robust readings on labor demand indicators (Chart 5). We expect wage growth to begin ticking higher in the months ahead, as will overall U.S. inflation expectations which still appear too low. The Cleveland Fed Median CPI has been steady around 2.5%, which is where we expect headline CPI inflation to be if the Fed's inflation target of 2% on the PCE deflator is met.2 We see TIPS breakevens gravitating towards those levels in the coming months, driving longer-term U.S. Treasury yields higher. Setbacks on the Trump economic agenda: President Trump's failure to get health care reform passed in Congress was interpreted as a sign that the more pro-growth parts of his agenda, like tax reform and infrastructure spending, would also have difficulties getting implemented. We are not strong believers in the idea of a significant "Trump trade" impact on growth and bond yields, as the U.S. economy was already showing improvement before Trump won the presidency. Nonetheless, any delay in the fiscal easing that Trump promised during the campaign would act to dampen expectations for U.S. growth and Fed rate hikes on the margin, to the benefit of U.S. Treasuries. Trump announced that he will unveil his tax reform proposals this week, with Congressional hearings on the subject also set to begin. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy expect Trump to try and move quickly to get a deal done, especially after the initial failure on health care reform. The political risks for the Republicans are very real in next year's mid-term elections, with current polling pointing to large losses of seats that could return the House of Representatives to Democrat control. If the Republicans want to push through their reform agenda and try and boost growth heading into the 2018 midterms to try and avert a loss of the House, they cannot delay on tax reform this year. While the U.S. political situation is always a wild card, we do not think that "Trump trade" disappointment will be a factor weighing on Treasury yields over the rest of 2017. Lower oil prices: Some of the decline in the inflation expectations component of global bond yields can be attributed to the pullback in oil prices since late February. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy continue to have a bullish outlook on global oil prices, however, and view the recent dip as a buying opportunity.3 They expect Russia and Saudi Arabia to honor their agreement to remove 1.8mm barrels/day of production from the global oil market our by mid-2017, as visible inventory levels remain too high. Combined with stronger expected demand, our strategists expect oil prices to move toward the $60/bbl level by year-end (Chart 6). That move would boost help to raise inflation expectations, and bond yields, in the months ahead. Chart 5U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low Chart 6Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Slower Euro Area inflation: Just like in the U.S., there was a pullback in Euro Area inflation expectations after the dip in realized inflation readings in March. While some cooling was expected simply from base effects related to swings in oil prices and the Euro, our headline CPI diffusion index indicates that an increasing majority of sectors are seeing accelerating price growth (Chart 7). If our commodity strategists are correct on the call for higher oil prices, we would expect to see some re-acceleration of Euro Area inflation, and more bear-steepening of Euro Area government bond yield curves, in the coming months. Especially if the European Central Bank (ECB) begins to send a signal about a tapering of its asset purchases - an outcome that is more likely if the polling data proves correct and Macron wins the French Presidency in two weeks, thus reducing the near-term political uncertainty in Europe. The ECB meets this week, and while we still think any shift in the ECB's tone is more likely at the June meeting (when a new set of economic projections will be produced), this will be the first opportunity for comments after the French election result. French Election Uncertainty: The pre-election rise in French risk premia fully unwound yesterday in a matter of hours (Chart 8). Implied volatilities on Euro Area equities and the EUR/USD exchange rate plunged, as did France sovereign CDS spreads. France-Germany government bond spreads tightened sharply as well, with the benchmark 10-year OAT-Bund spread declining -19bps from last Friday's closing levels. With Macron having a 20 point lead on Le Pen in a two-way race according to the latest opinion polls - which proved to be very accurate in the first round of voting - we think that current spread levels are consistent with a Macron victory on May 7. Chart 7Only A Brief Setback##br## In Euro Area Inflation Chart 8Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short ##br##Germany Spread Trade We do not expect much additional spread tightening if Macron does indeed win, especially if the ECB does begin to signal a tapering of bond purchases in 2018. That would result in wider risk premia across all European bond markets as valuations start to return to levels more in line with fundamentals. Given France's high sovereign debt levels and low productivity growth vis-à-vis Germany, we do not see the OAT-Bund spread returning to the pre-election lows if the ECB slows its bond buying. Thus, we are taking profits on the long France/Short Germany 10-year bond trade in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio, which we established back in early February when the spread was 76bps; 26bps higher than yesterday's close.4 Bottom Line: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Pricing Power Comeback," dated April 24 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 That assumes a difference between headline CPI and PCE deflator inflation in line with its historical average of around 50bps. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017/H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds," dated February 7 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, the average return of nine safe-haven assets has been positive in every bear market since 1972. A safe haven should serve two purposes. First, it should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all markets. Second, it should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. Low intra-correlations between safe-haven assets, and substantial absolute differences between individual returns and the overall group average suggest that selection adds significant alpha. In the next bear market, we recommend positions in CHF over USD and JPY, due to its greater consistency as a safe-haven asset and more attractive valuations. Favor gold over farmland and TIPS, as gold offers a better hedge against political risks while still protecting against rising inflation. Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds given a more appealing return distribution and high spreads. Feature Feature ChartSafe Haven Performance As the economic expansion approaches its 100th month, far longer than 38.7 month average1 of cycles starting from 1854, concerns continue to mount over the next recession and equity market crash. Memories of over 50% losses in stocks during the subprime crisis are still ingrained in investors' minds and the importance of capital preservation and safe-haven assets cannot be stressed enough. Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, during the subprime crisis, an equal-weighted portfolio of nine safe-haven assets actually increased in absolute value by 12% (Feature Chart)! This has held consistent through every bear market since 1972 and we expect the next crisis to be the same. While we do not expect a bear market in the next 12 months, we do stress the importance of being prepared and tactically flexible given the substantial relative and absolute performance of safe-haven assets. In this Special Report, we analyze behaviors of safe havens during past bear markets in order to recommend tilts to outperform during the next major equity selloff. Historical Perspective For our analysis, we used monthly return data to more accurately compare across asset classes. We used the following nine safe-haven assets: U.S. Dollar - As the world's reserve currency, the U.S. dollar benefits from massive trade volumes. Japanese Yen - Japan is still the world's 3rd largest economy and runs a current account surplus. Investors' perceptions of safety are intact and the currency benefits from unwinding of carry trades during risk-off environments. Swiss Franc - Switzerland has built a reputation for its international banking prowess, political neutrality and economic stability. U.S. Farmland - Farmland differs from the others in that it is a tangible, hard asset. With finite supply and an increasing population leading to higher needs for farming and food, demand will remain robust. U.S. Treasuries - Treasuries have essentially no default risk. Since its formation in 1776, the U.S. has never failed to pay back its debt. German Bunds - Germany benefits from being economically and politically stable. Bunds are extremely liquid and could receive capital inflows in the event of euro area disintegration. Gold - Gold has a longstanding history as a safe-haven asset, protecting against inflation, currency debasement and geopolitical risks. U.S. TIPS - TIPS are the purest inflation hedge; their historical performance has held a very tight correlation with realized changes in consumer prices. Hedge Funds - Hedge funds are attractive given their lack of restrictions and ability to short. We classified an equity bear market as a decline in the S&P 500, from peak to trough, larger than 19%.2 Using this definition, we recorded eight separate instances since 1972 (See Appendix). On average, these episodes lasted about 14 months and equity prices experienced declines of 34%. We examined returns, correlations and recession characteristics in order to draw conclusions about potential future behavior. Key Findings: During bear markets, the value of these nine safe havens increased on average by 9.2% (Table 1). This certainly does not offset the 34% average decline in equities, but it does provide a considerable buffer, particularly if allocators tilt asset class weightings. However, there is concern that safe havens as a whole will not provide as much protection in the next downturn as they have in the past, given weak equity inflows and still-considerable cash on the sidelines (Chart 2). The average absolute spread between the returns of the nine safe havens and their overall average return was 12.3%. While the correlations between financial assets tend to spike upwards during bear markets, they actually remain very low between safe-haven assets. This indicates a significant opportunity for alpha generation during equity downturns. The region from which a crisis stems has little impact on which safe haven outperforms. For example, U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar both increased in value during the past two recessions, despite the tech bubble and subprime crisis originating from the U.S. (Chart 3). Capital inflows into those assets remained robust given their reputation for safety and quality. U.S. Treasuries and the Swiss franc always had positive absolute returns during the eight bear markets, and therefore have always had a negative correlation with equities (Table 2). These two assets have very stable reputations for safety. Nevertheless, other safe havens, such as gold, USD, JPY and Bunds, still maintained negative correlations with equities during most bear markets. U.S. farmland and U.S. TIPS also had positive returns in the three bear markets since their starting dates. Hedge funds, while known to outperform equities during bear markets, did not provide positive absolute returns in any of the four equity downturns since the index began. Table 1Bear Market Performance Chart 2Safe Havens: Less Protection Next Time? Chart 3Location Doesn't Matter Table 2Correlation With Equities Investment Implications Chart 4A Near-term Bear Market Is Unlikely It is crucial to understand the purpose of a safe-haven asset as it pertains to portfolio management. First, a safe-haven asset should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all environments. Secondly, and more importantly, a safe-haven asset should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. As safe havens naturally receive a smaller allocation in typical portfolios due to their underperformance versus equities in most years, it is imperative that relatively smaller weightings and minor tilts offset large declines in equity prices. It is important, however to note that we view the probability of a bear market as highly unlikely over the next twelve months (Chart 4). First, substantial stock price declines are not very common outside of recessions. As our colleague Martin Barnes points out, the yield curve is not inverted, there are no serious financial imbalances, and the leading economic indicator remains in an uptrend.3 Monetary conditions are still stimulative, and it generally requires Fed tightening to surpass equilibrium before recessions occur. Massive average absolute deviations for each individual safe haven from the overall group average and low intra-correlations suggest that selection adds significant alpha (Chart 5). Unlike most financial assets, intra-correlations between safe havens actually decline during bear markets. In order to best compare and contrast safe havens, we divided the assets into three buckets: currencies, inflation hedges and fixed income. Below, we recommend tilts within these buckets and will revisit these recommendations closer to the next bear market. Chart 5Intra-correlations Remain Low In Bear Markets Currencies: Overweight CHF relative to USD and JPY. As a zero-sum game, currency selection offers a critical avenue for alpha generation. As global growth continues to improve and capital flows to more cyclical currencies, or to the USD where policymakers are tightening, the Swiss franc should become even more attractively valued. The franc's considerable excess kurtosis, indicating higher likelihood of outsized returns, best fits the insurance-like payoff quality (Chart 6). It is the only currency to have outperformed, and therefore held a negative correlation with equities, during each of the eight recessions, indicating high reliability as a safe-haven asset. Going forward, we see no reason for Switzerland's reputation for economic stability or political neutrality to be compromised. The biggest risk to this view would be if the Swiss National Bank were to stick stubbornly to its peg of the CHF to the EUR during the next recession, thereby dampening the franc's risk-off properties. The USD has historically been able to outperform even when the crisis originated in the U.S. Historical bear market performance was greatest, however, following sharp Fed tightening such as the Volker crash, when the Fed increased rates in response to high inflation, or in the subprime crisis, when the Fed increased rates to slow growth (Chart 7). While we expect inflation and growth to grind upward over the cyclical horizon, our base case is not for a surge in consumer prices or for economic growth to expand significantly above trend. Chart 6Return Distributions Chart 7Fed Tightening = USD Outperformance In the next bear market, the JPY will likely benefit from cheap starting valuations as the BoJ is currently aggressively easing, and its current account surplus raises its fair value. Nevertheless, the yen's returns during equity downturns have not always been consistent with its safe haven reputation. Of the three currencies, since 1970, it has had the lowest probability for large returns. Inflation Hedges: Overweight Gold relative to TIPS and Farmland. Over most of the time frames we tested, gold had the highest correlation with both headline and core inflation (Tables 3 & 4). Table 3Correlation With Core Inflation Table 4Correlation With Headline Inflation The main differentiating factor with gold is its ability to hedge against political risk. Our geopolitical strategists found that of all of the safe-haven assets, gold offered the best protection against political shocks4 (Chart 8). As mentioned in one of our recent Special Reports,5 we believe that stagnation in median wages and wealth inequality will continue to fuel the rise in populism and social unrest. Chart 8Gold Is Best At Hedging Political Risk Farmland has historically offered decent inflation protection, but its history is limited, supply is scarce and the massive runup in prices is a cause for concern. While we currently favor TIPS over nominal bonds, their negative skew and excess kurtosis suggest that they are vulnerable to large negative returns, making them a less-than-ideal safe-haven asset. Fixed Income: Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds. Concerns that, because government yields are starting at very low levels, bonds will not provide safety in the next bear market, are overblown. Recent history proves that yields can reach negative territory, and historical performance for government fixed income has been robust in almost every significant equity decline. Additionally, the end of the 35-year decline in interest rates should not negatively affect the protection capabilities of Treasuries. Yields actually rose leading up to, and during, the 1972 and 1980 bear markets, and Treasuries still provided positive absolute returns (Chart 9). One caveat is that starting yields are much lower today. If yields were to rise during the next recession, they may not achieve positive absolute returns, though government bonds would still certainly outperform equities by a wide margin. Overall, Treasuries have held a more negative correlation with equities during bear markets, spreads over Bunds will likely continue to rise given diverging monetary policy, and they have historically been more prone to outsized positive returns during crisis periods (Chart 10). Bunds are currently benefitting from flight-to-quality flows resulting from political and policy issues originating in the periphery. However, at some point, concerns that the euro crisis will spread to Germany may eliminate this advantage. Chart 9Rising Yields Were Not A Problem Chart 10Relative Treasury Valuations Will Become More Attractive Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.nber.org/cycles.html. 2 While a 20% decline may be a more widely-used measure for bear markets, there have been three instances of 19% declines since 1972, one of which was a recession. We decided to include these in our analysis to increase the number of observations and improve the reliability of our analysis. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated 7 March 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics and Safe Havens" dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated 5 December 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Commercial oil inventories finished the first quarter with a minimal draw. This was largely due to a surge in production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of 2016 and earlier this year, as well as slightly lower demand. Despite reports floating storage and more opaque inventories - e.g., Caribbean storage - drew significantly, OPEC 2.0 remains well short of its goal to get visible oil stocks down to five-year-average levels by year-end. If drawing storage down to more normal levels remains OPEC 2.0's goal, then the production-cutting deal negotiated by Saudi Arabia and Russia will have to be extended when OPEC meets next month. We expect this to happen. Even so, risk-reversals in options markets indicate investors and hedgers are willing to pay more for downside put protection than upside call exposure. We recommend fading this bias, and buying out-of-the-money calls and selling out-of-the-money puts using Dec/17 options. Energy: Overweight. We closed our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI position last Thursday with a 583.3% gain. We remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent, which is up 242.1%. Our long GSCI position is down 1.3%. We are recommending a long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl call vs. a short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl put, which we will put on at tonight's close. This is driven by our analysis of the need to extend OPEC 2.0's production-cutting deal into the end of the year to reduce OECD commercial oil inventories. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to trade on either side of $60/bbl by year-end. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper traded lower this week, on the back of news Freeport McMoRan is poised to resume exports from its Indonesian facilities. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded higher, but remains range-bound. Our long volatility gold options play is up 2.9%. We will leave this trade on as a hedge, going into the French elections. Ags/Softs: Underweight: Despite heavy rains, grains (excluding rice) and beans were well offered this past week. Feature The surge in oil production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of last year and earlier this year, along with a reported slowing of demand - down ~ 100k b/d from our March estimates - combined to leave estimated supply and demand roughly balanced for 2017Q1 (Chart of the Week). These dynamics left visible OECD inventories above year-end 2016 levels (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekVisible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, ##br##As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Chart 2Visible Inventories Will Reach 5-year Average##br## If OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Are Extended Less-visible floating storage, along with oil stockpiles in China and Japan, drew more than 70mm barrels (bbls), according to Morgan Stanley, while Caribbean storage fell by some 10 - 20mm bbls during the last quarter.1 In addition, major trading companies are actively looking for buyers to take unwanted physical storage capacity off their hands. Nonetheless, OPEC 2.0 - the states banded together under the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market in 2017H1 - remains well short of its goal to get visible inventories down to five-year-average levels. Failure to reduce inventories almost surely requires producers allied in the production-cutting deal to extend their pact into 2017H2. We think they will, given the oft-stated desire of the Saudi and Russian energy ministers, Khalid Al-Falih and Alexander Novak, to see inventories continue to draw. Their desire was re-stated recently at a hastily called news conference in Houston last month.2 This message has remained constant from other OPEC leaders as well. The Logic Of Extending OPEC 2.0's Deal To 2017H2 Reducing the global storage overhang is imperative for the OPEC 2.0 coalition. It is the driving force behind the unlikely alliance KSA and Russia forged at the end of last year. Without pulling storage down to more normal levels, inventories remain too close to topping out, which puts markets at higher risk of the sort of price collapse seen in 2015 - 16. At the beginning of 2016, global oil markets were close to pricing in the approach of a full-storage event. In such an event, as global inventories approach capacity, prices trade below the cash-operating costs of the most expensive producers, until enough supply is forcibly knocked off line to drain excess stocks. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like KSA, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector.3 After the last such event at the beginning of 2016, these states were left reeling, as fiscal spending was slashed, projects were canceled and governments burned through foreign reserves in an effort to make up for lost revenue. Entering the second quarter of this year, KSA and its allies continue to over-deliver on their pledges to cut ~ 1.2mm b/d of production. Markets are expecting Russian cuts to increase to ~ 300k b/d, in line with their pledges under the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement negotiated last year (Chart 3 and Chart 4). Chart 3KSA Continues To Over-Deliver; ##br##Russian Cuts Expected to Increase Chart 4KSA Allies Continue to Deliver;##br## Iran And Iraq Continue To Under-Deliver However, if the OPEC 2.0 production deal to remove ~ 1.8mm b/d of production is not extended beyond its end-June deadline, storage levels will remain uncomfortably high for the KSA - Russia alliance. By our reckoning, allowing the deal to expire without extending it would only reduce visible OECD inventories by a little over 170mm barrels by year-end. This can be inferred from our assessment of balances (Chart of the Week). Not extending OPEC 2.0's deal leaves OECD commercial oil inventories close to 130mm barrels above the targeted 300mm-barrel drawdown required to return OECD inventories to more normal (i.e., five-year average) levels. With U.S. shale production coming on strong, this could be precarious for OPEC 2.0 next year. Extending the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal to the end of 2017H2 will reduce visible commercial inventories in the OECD by slightly more than the 300mm barrels being targeted (Chart 5). This should put storage levels back at more normal, five-year average levels, and give OPEC 2.0 some breathing room to craft a strategy to contain U.S. shale production going forward.4 For this reason, extending the 1.8mm b/d production cuts to end-2017 is almost a foregone conclusion for us, particularly as KSA needs to clean up the market, so to speak, ahead of the IPO of Saudi Aramco next year. Among other potential investors with a keen interest in the potential $100 billion floatation is a state-led consortium of Chinese banks and oil companies.5 We Think Upside Risks Dominate Oil Markets The logic of extending the OPEC 2.0 deal is compelling. But the market does not share this view. Oil speculators have significantly reduced their net long position as a percent of total open interest in the dominant crude-oil futures markets, WTI and Brent (Chart 6). This, after the specs were chastened following their huge increase in upside exposure earlier this year. Chart 5Extending OPEC 2.0'S Production Deal Reduces ##br##OECD Oil Stocks By 300mm+ Barrels By End-2017 Chart 6Specs Are Retreating From Oil We can also see a lack of conviction in oil options markets. Option markets provide a useful gauge of fear and greed called "skew," which is nothing more than the difference between implied option volatilities (IOV) for puts and calls.6 When the skew favors puts - shown by a negative number in the risk-reversal shown in Chart 7 - markets are signaling they value downside protection more than upside exposure, and vice versa when call IOVs exceed put IOVs. Chart 7Option Skew Favors Downside Puts ##br##Over Upside Call Exposure Given the logic we laid out above, we are recommending investors fade the put skew in the options markets. Specifically, we are getting long out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and selling out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts against them, to express our view. We will be doing so at the close of trading today, and will report our strikes and net premium in next week's publication.7 Bottom Line: We expect the OPEC 2.0 production deal to be extended when OPEC meets on May 25 in Vienna. This will significantly raise the odds OECD commercial oil stocks will be drawn down to more normal levels, giving the OPEC 2.0 petro-states more breathing room to develop a strategy to regain a modicum of control over prices. This is critical for KSA, which still is on track to IPO Saudi Aramco next year. Given our expectation, we are recommending investors buy out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and sell out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts. This allows investors to fade what appears to be a consensus - given put skews and spec positioning - and capitalize on what we believe is an all-but-certain extension of the OPEC 2.0 production deal. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by December, and to average $55/bbl to 2020. As has been mentioned often, our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018, given the large capex cuts for projects that would have been funded between 2015 and 2020 absent the 2014 - 2016 oil-price collapse. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC's Barkindo Sees Progress in Oil Cuts as Stockpiles Drop," and "Oil Traders Drain Hidden Caribbean Hoards as OPEC Cuts Bite," published by Bloomberg.com on April 2 and 3, 2017, respectively. 2 Please see "Saudi Arabia, Russia Offer United Front on Oil Supply Cuts," published by Bloomberg.com on March 7, 2017, and "Saudi energy minister says oil market fundamentals improving," published by reuters.com on the same day. 3 BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy examined this in our feature article published on September 8, 2016, entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We discuss this at length in "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report April 6 and March 30, 2017, Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Exclusive: China gathers state-led consortium for Aramco IPO - sources," published by Reuters.com on April 19, 2017. We speculated on just such an event in "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and its Geopolitical Strategy January 14, 2016. We noted, "While inviting Western investors and energy firms to take a stake in Aramco would make obvious sense for Saudi Arabia, we would speculate that the real target for the IPO will be Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). China has overtaken the U.S. as the main importer of crude from Saudi Arabia ... but it continues to free-ride on Washington's security guarantees and commitments in the region. By giving China a stake in Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure, Riyadh would force Beijing to start caring about what happens in the region." 6 "Implied option volatility" is market jargon for the standard deviation of expected returns. It is used as an input for option-pricing models. The "implied," as it's known colloquially in markets, solves an option-pricing model like Fischer Black's, once the option's premium is discovered via trading. Market participants can determine whether puts (i.e., the right, but not the obligation, to sell) are more highly valued than calls (the right to buy) in relative terms by differencing the implied volatilities of puts and calls that are equidistant from at-the-money options. This is referred to as the options' "skew." We use the IOVs for puts and calls that both change by $0.25/bbl for every $1.00/bbl move in oil futures (i.e., 25-delta puts and calls) to calculate skew. Please see Fischer Black's seminal article, "The Pricing of Commodity Contracts," in the Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, (1976), pp. 167-79. 7 We employed a similar strategy in March 2016 - getting long Dec/16 Brent $50/bbl calls vs. selling $25/bbl puts, which registered a 103.5% gain between March 3 and April 14, following a rally in Brent prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

Highlights GFIS Portfolio: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Upsizing Positions: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweighting U.S. Treasuries, overweighting U.S. corporate debt and underweighting Italian government debt. Tactical Overlay: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element into our global bond strategy framework - a model portfolio that allows us to track the combined performance of our individual recommendations. The first piece of this process was the introduction of our custom benchmark index that defined our investment universe, which is similar to the Barclays Global Aggregate but with a dedicated allocation to global high-yield corporate debt.1 The next component is presented in this Special Report, where we take an initial look at measuring the performance of our model portfolio. The final element (to be presented in another upcoming report) will be introducing a formal risk management system into our process to help guide the relative sizes of our suggested portfolio tilts. We intend to show the portfolio returns on a quarterly basis going forward, in line with the types of reporting mandates that a typical bond manager might face. However, our recommendations are meant to play out over a more strategic investment horizon of one full year, in line with our proven strength in analyzing medium-term macroeconomic and investment trends. Each individual quarterly report should be interpreted in that context as only a partial reflection of the full expected return from our portfolio if our market calls come to fruition. Overall Portfolio Performance Attribution: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Our model portfolio has delivered a total return of -0.41% (hedged into U.S. dollars) since inception on September 20, 2016. This slightly underperformed our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) custom benchmark index by -2bps, but did outperform the Barclays Global Aggregate index that returned -0.85%. In terms of the main drivers of our returns, the government bond portion of our portfolio added +3bps of excess return versus our GFIS benchmark, while the spread product component subtracted -5bps (Chart 1). These are admittedly small numbers, essentially delivering a benchmark return in six months. In terms of our major asset allocation decisions, our below-benchmark overall duration stance served us well in the final quarter of 2016, adding +20bps of excess return during the run-up in global bond yields following the election victory of President Trump in November. After shifting to a neutral posture in early December, however, our decision to cut duration again in late January has hurt the performance of our model portfolio, as global bond yields have since fallen and eliminated much of our gains from duration positioning from Q4/2016. On the other hand, that same choice to lower duration exposure in late January coincided with our decision to raise exposure to U.S. corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) and cut the allocations to U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area investment grade corporates. U.S. corporates have performed relatively well since then, helping pull the excess return from our overall spread product exposure, excluding U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), into positive territory (Chart 1, bottom panel). Unfortunately, our underweight tilt on U.S. MBS - a sector that represents a hefty 14% of our benchmark index - has acted as a drag on our overall returns from spread product. However, MBS performance has started to lag both U.S. Treasuries and corporates of late, justifying our underweight stance. A more detailed performance attribution is presented in Table 1, which shows the excess returns broken down by the same government bond duration buckets and credit sectors that we regularly present in the model portfolio table in our Weekly Reports. We also show the average deviation from our GFIS benchmark index weightings (our "active" positions) over the period in question to give a sense of the bias of our tilts. Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Performance Within the government bond portion of our model portfolio, there were positive excess return contributions from the U.S. and Japan (Chart 2), largely coming from underweights at the very long end of the yield curves that reflect our bias for curve steepening in those markets. The 10+ year duration buckets in the U.S. and Japan added +8bps and +7bps of excess return, respectively. Also, our underweight position in Italy helped generate a small positive excess return of +3bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Country Within Government At the same time, our exposures in Europe proved to be an almost equivalent drag on returns, as we maintained an underweight in U.K. Gilts, and overweights in German and French sovereign debt, for a bit too long before the trends in those markets turned late last year (more bullishly for the U.K. and bearishly for core Europe). Within the spread product segment of the portfolio (Chart 3), our steady overweight to U.S. Investment Grade Financials and our large underweight to U.S. Investment Grade industrials late last year (which we reduced substantially in December) helped those segments deliver excess returns of +5bps and +2bps, respectively. Our decision to upgrade High-Yield in late January also added positively to our performance within the Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers. Emerging market debt, where we have maintained only a neutral weighting, was the largest contributor to absolute returns within our portfolio and our benchmark, adding +30bps to both. Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Sector Within Spread Product Detailed charts showing the total returns, yields, portfolio weights and excess returns for some of our best and worst performing sectors are presented in the Appendix on page 11. Bottom Line: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Increasing The Sizes Of Our Highest Conviction Portfolio Recommendations Delivering only a benchmark-like return is hardly the goal we are aiming to achieve with our model portfolio. However, given how much our weightings have, in aggregate, mirrored those of our benchmark index so far, the results should not be a surprise. The average (mean) allocations to government debt and spread product over the six-month life our model portfolio are shown in Chart 4, alongside the average (mean) benchmark weightings. It is clear from that chart that our overall exposures have been far too similar to those of our GFIS benchmark index. In the parlance of portfolio management, we have been taking far too little tracking error versus our benchmark, so far, to generate any meaningful alpha. Or, more simply put, our recommended positions have been too small and, in many cases, have been offsetting each other. Chart 4Bigger Tilts Are Needed In The Model Portfolio The absence of a true risk management system, incorporating sector correlations and volatilities, has clearly been an issue so far. Our initial (and, admittedly, simple) attempt at sizing our recommendations was based on translating our "1 to 5" rankings from our traditional portfolio allocation tables into a factor that would scale up/down the individual country or sector weightings versus our benchmark.2 Clearly, this approach has not created portfolio weightings large enough to move the needle on performance. We will look to complete that final piece of our GFIS model portfolio framework - appropriate trade sizing and risk management - in the next couple of months. This will allow us to more properly size our relative positions going forward while maintaining enough overall deviation from the GFIS benchmark index (i.e. tracking error) to have a chance to generate meaningful outperformance. For now, however, we feel that we can comfortably increase the sizes of our current recommended tilts for our highest conviction views, which we discussed in our most recent Weekly Report.3 We are reducing our overall portfolio duration from the current 6.34 years (-0.64 years versus our GFIS benchmark index duration) to 5.75 years. After the recent decline in bond yields on the back of rising global geopolitical tensions and a modest soft patch of "hard" U.S. economic data, the entry point for reducing duration exposure even further is attractive. We are cutting our allocation to U.S. Treasuries from the current 14.6% (-3% versus the benchmark) to 10%, and placing the proceeds equally into U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate debt. This is to capitalize on the cyclical uptrend in U.S. growth and corporate profits, and additional Fed rate hikes, which we still see unfolding this year. We are cutting our allocation to Italian government debt from the current 3.5% (-0.8% versus the benchmark) to 1%, and placing the proceeds equally into Germany and Spain. This is to reduce exposure to the weakest link in the Euro Area, particularly as political risks will remain elevated in Italy leading up to the parliamentary elections that are due in 2018. We are maintaining the current sizes of the medium conviction views that we discussed last week - specifically, the overweight stance on Japanese government bonds (a low-beta market in a rising yield environment) and an underweight tilt on U.S. MBS (where valuations are stretched). The new weightings within our portfolio are shown in the model portfolio table on page 10. Bottom Line: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight U.S. corporate debt and underweight Italian government debt. Don't Forget About Our Tactical Overlays Our model portfolio is intended to be a reflection of the more medium-term, strategic fixed income investment views that stem from our regular analysis of trends in the global economy, inflation, monetary policy, etc. In other words, the positions in the portfolio are not intended to be changed too frequently. We also have chosen to stick with what we believe are more liquid markets in the portfolio, and without any use of derivatives of leverage to amplify returns beyond what the "fundamentals" suggest. Our recommendations that are shorter-term in nature (i.e. 0-3 months), or that may be in less liquid markets (i.e. New Zealand government bonds or U.S. TIPS), or that involve derivatives (i.e. Japanese CPI swaps or Sweden Overnight Index Swaps) are placed in our "Tactical Overlay Trades" list that appears in every Weekly Report. These recommendations have been performing extremely well since the inception of our model portfolio, as shown in Table 2.4 Table 2GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Are Doing Well 9 of the current 12 trades are making money, with an average total return of 0.45%. The most successful are the long U.S. TIPS/short U.S. Treasuries trade (+3.4%) and the short 10-year Portugal government bond versus German Bunds trade (+1.0%). While we have not made any attempt to put any position sizes on those trade ideas, in contrast to our model portfolio, it is clear that even a modest allocation to each of these trades would have generated a meaningful positive return "overlay" on top of what was generated by our model portfolio. Bottom Line: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 For example, a "5 of 5" ranking would generate a portfolio allocation that was 1.75x the benchmark index weight, while a "1 of 5" ranking would apply a 0.5x factor to the index weight. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Song Remains The Same", dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please note that in Table 2, the returns on the trades that were initiated before the inception of our model portfolio on September 20th, 2016 are shown from that date and not from the date that the trade was initiated. This is to allow an "apples-to-apples" comparison to our model portfolio performance. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio

Special Report

Highlights Small caps have not consistently outperformed large caps. However, the cyclical nature of small-cap relative performance may provide tactical timing opportunities. Index methodology plays a very important role in the behavior of small-cap performance. Currently, we recommend being neutral on size in a balanced global equity portfolio because risk/reward between small and large caps is balanced, and because GAA is overweight cyclicals versus defensives, a similar play but with a better risk/reward profile. Feature The Academic Evidence On Size Premium In academic research, the size premium, or the outperformance of small-cap common stocks relative to large-cap common stocks, has been calculated mostly based on the difference between the return of the smallest cap portfolio and that of the largest cap portfolio. Since the first academic paper that "discovered" the "size premium" in 1981, by Rolf Banz of the University of Chicago,1 a great deal of research has been devoted to this subject, both for and against the validity of the size premium.2 Table 1 comes from Asness et al.3 It summarizes the statistics of monthly size premium over time using the two most widely used zero-cost portfolio approaches to capture the returns to size. 1) The "small minus big" (SMB) stock factor return of Fama and French:4 the average return of three small portfolios minus the average return of three large portfolios obtained from Ken French's website;5 and 2) the return spread between size-sorted and market cap-weighted decile portfolios. The universe is all the stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ, including delisted securities from the CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) database. Table 1Size Premium Over Time* The size premium is statistically significant at the 5% level with a t-stat of 2.27 for SMB and 2.32 for D1-D10 for the full sample period from 19266 to 2012;7 However, most of the size premium comes from January, while in the rest of the year the size return is economically and statistically not different from zero; The size premium was not always positive over time, as evidenced during the period 1980-1999 when small cap suffered a 20-year underperformance right after the size premium was "discovered" in 1981. Compared to SMB, the more extreme approach, Decile 1 minus Decile 10, has produced a larger positive size premium (as well as a larger negative size premium in periods of underperformance), suggesting that micro caps, the most volatile segment of the market, may have a significant impact on the overall size premium. However, for non-quant practitioners, especially asset allocators, the portfolio approaches used in academic research may not be practical. In this report, we will study a series of small cap and large cap benchmark indexes in the U.S. and globally that are commonly used by practitioners to shed some light on the size premium and how it can be harvested, if it indeed exists. Not All Small-Cap Indexes Are Created Equal, Even In The U.S. There is no definitive definition of small cap. The general consensus is that it refers to companies with market value between US$300 and US$2 billion in the U.S., while in other markets this may vary. In the U.S., the first small-cap index, the Russell 2000 (R2K), was created in 1984, after the size premium was discovered in 1981 by Rolf Banz. While Banz was not sure if size per se was responsible for the effect or if size was just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size, Fama and French published their ground breaking work in 19926 and 19934 confirming the existence of size and value factors. Then in 1994 the S&P launched its own small-cap index, the S&P 600. Chart 1U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence Chart 1 shows that the performance of these two indexes has been quite different even though they have been highly correlated. Since December 1994, the S&P 600 has outperformed the R2K by about 50%-about 2% per year on a compound basis. From 1980 to 1994, however, the back-calculated8 S&P 600 significantly underperformed the R2K. So what has contributed to such significant performance difference between these two U.S. small-cap indexes? The answer may lie in the different methodologies used in constructing them. Different Universe And Size Distribution: FTSE Russell9 and S&P Dow Jones10 use different eligibilitFy conditions to define their respective universes for the U.S. equity market. Russell 3000 (R3K) contains the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. by market cap. The smallest 2000 names go into the R2K, which currently accounts for about 8% of the R3K by market cap weight.11 The S&P 1500 contains the 1500 largest names, also by market cap, with the S&P 600 being the smallest 600 of these names, which account for less than 3.5% of the S&P 1500. Even though the stated target market-cap range is US$30 million to US$2 billion for the R2K, and US$450 million to US$2.1 billion for the S&P 600, respectively, currently about 50% and 40% of the companies in the R2K and the S&P 600 respectively have a market cap over US$2 billion, as shown in Chart 2. The R2K even has 25% over US$3 billion, about 15% more than the S&P 600. Different Sector Compositions: Both indexes' sector composition has evolved over the years due to changes in the economy and financial markets. Their current sector compositions are shown in Table 2. Most notably, the S&P 600 has higher weights in industrials and consumer discretionary, while R2K has higher weights in technology, financials, real estate and utilities. Chart 2U.S. Small-Cap Index Market Cap Distribution Table 2Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Global Small Caps Have Not Consistently Outperformed Large Caps MSCI also produces small-cap indexes for each country. According to the MSCI Global Investable Markets Index methodology,12 the size cut-off for each size segment needs to be a balance between the minimum size requirement and the target coverage range, in addition to other requirements such as liquidity and free float. As shown in Table 3, large caps comprise the top 70% of the investable universe, mid caps the next 15%, and small caps a further 14%. As of October 2016, the market-cap range for the DM small-cap index is from US$527 million to US$5 billion, and about half that for the EM small-cap index. Table 3MSCI Size Cut-Offs* MSCI indexes apply the same rules to all markets, which aids the global comparison analysis. Unfortunately, MSCI indexes have very short histories. Chart 3 shows the relative performance of small caps vs. large caps based on the MSCI indexes, and also local exchange indexes (where available). All panels are rebased to 1 as of March 2009 when the S&P 500 reached its low during the most recent financial crisis. The shaded areas are U.S. recession periods as defined by NBER. Several observations from Chart 3: U.S., U.K. and Japan have relatively long histories for the small-cap indexes. Based on the three countries' local indexes, small caps have barely outperformed large caps over the full history available; From the index inceptions until 1999, small-cap indexes broadly underperformed large caps in the U.S., U.K. and Japan, in line with the findings of the academic research shown in Table 1; Since 2000, however, small caps have outperformed large caps in most countries (in line with the academic findings shown in Table 1) with the exception of Canada and Australia, which both have extremely skewed sector composition. As shown in Table 4, a bet on Canadian small caps vs. large caps is essentially a bet on materials, real estate and industrials versus financials and telecoms; In the most recent cycle from March 2009, small-cap outperformance has been most prominent outside the U.S., especially in the U.K. and euro area. This might be due to the fact that the U.S. is the most academically researched market and that most small-cap funds are U.S. oriented. In the U.S., the MSCI and the S&P small-cap indexes have performed better than the Russell indexes, which is likely due to the fact that Russell does not have a midcap segment, with both the R2K and R1K including stocks that would elsewhere be classified as mid caps. Table 4Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Drivers Of Small/Large Cap Performance Even though small-cap stocks have not consistently outperformed large-cap stocks over the long run, Chart 3 indicates that the relative performance does have cycles, which may provide tactical opportunities for investors. In line with our investment approach across all asset classes, we try to identify the key factors that drive the relative performance of small caps versus large caps based on economic fundamentals, valuation metrics, and technical conditions. Economic Conditions: Compared to large-cap companies, small-cap firms are usually smaller-scale enterprises with a more domestic focus and less tried-and-tested business models. On average, they have less predictable cash flows, lower profit margins and lower credit ratings. As such, their ability to withstand hard times is lower, while their likelihood to prosper in good times is higher. Chart 4 (panel 1) shows that the rate of change in the small/large cap performance ratio has a good correlation with the PMI, indicating that stronger economic growth is indeed better for the more cyclically-oriented small-cap firms. Other factors such as credit spreads and small enterprise confidence also have good correlations with small/large cap performance in the most recent cycle, but historical correlations were much looser (panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Chart 4What Drives Size Performance? Valuation Metrics: Asness et al4 labelled 2000-2012 as the "resurrection" period for small-cap outperformance. Chart 4 (panel 4), shows that the first uninterrupted outperformance from 2000 to 2006 started at an extremely cheap valuation in 2000 when small caps were trading at a 36% discount to large caps, two standard deviations below the five-year average discount of 8%. The six-year uninterrupted outperformance was largely driven by relative valuation expansion such that by 2006, when the outperformance peaked, small caps were trading at a 20% premium, two standard deviations above the five-year average, which was a discount of 4%. The unwinding of the excessive valuation over the next two years brought the valuation metrics back to an extremely cheap level again in 2008, which kick-started another strong period of outperformance for small caps. However, since 2012 valuation has failed to expand even though small caps continued to outperform, albeit at a slower pace. This might be due to the fact that, on an absolute basis, small caps have been trading at a premium to large caps, and because valuation expansion became more difficult given how low small-cap profit margins have been (panel 5). Technically, based on our factor studies on momentum, a simple 12-month rate of change has generated positive alpha in a statistically significant way. We use the standardized 12-month rate of change of the relative performance ratio to gauge the relative momentum (panel 6) Portfolio Recommendation: Neutral On Size Over The Next 9-12 Months Chart 5There Is A Better Alternative The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative performance of global small caps versus large caps had a close correlation with cyclicals/defensives from 1995 to 2011, but that the two have diverged over the past five years, during which time small caps have outperformed large caps by 7%, but cyclicals have underperformed defensives by 4%, despite a strong reversal in 2016. This divergence could be explained by relative earnings growth, as shown in panel 2: small-cap earnings outpaced large-cap over the past five years, while cyclicals' earnings growth lagged defensives' until 2016 when a reversal occurred. Given our view on global growth and the historical correlation shown in panel 3, it's likely that cyclical earnings growth will further outpace the defensive earnings growth over the next 12 months. GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where risk is most likely to be rewarded. We already have overweights on equities versus bonds at the asset class level, and on cyclicals versus defensives in our global equity sector positioning, on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we do not feel comfortable adding a similar, but less rewarding, risk into our recommended global equity portfolio. In addition, current readings on the key performance drivers also support a neutral rating: as shown in Chart 4, both valuation and technical indicators are at the neutral level. The Global PMI is strong, but credit spreads are tight and small enterprise surveys in the U.S. and Japan are already at extremely optimistic levels. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Banz, Rolf (1981), "The relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, vol.6, 103-126 2 Van Dijk, Mathijs A, (2011), "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 3263-3274. 3 Asness, Clifford S., Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz and Lasse H. Pedersen, "Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk", AQR Working Paper, 2015. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds", The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 5 Kenneth R. French website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-f_bench_factor.html 6 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1992), "The Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance 47, 427-465 7 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds," The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 8 S&P600 history before October 1994 was back calculated by Datastream, Russell 2000 history before 1984 was back calculated by FTSE Russell. 9 Please see "Construction and Methodology : Russell U.S. Equity Indexes, v.2.4," FTSE Russell, March 2017. 10 Please see "S&P U.S. Indices Methodology," S&P Dow Jones, March 2017. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_2000_Index 12 Please see "MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes Methodology," MSCI, Feb 2017.

Highlights The rally in risk assets appears to have stalled, raising fears that the misnamed "Trump Trade" has ended. Investors are attaching too much importance to the reality show in Washington and not enough to the fundamentals underpinning the acceleration in global growth and corporate earnings. For now, these fundamentals are strong, and should remain so for the next 12 months. Beyond then, the impulse from easier financial conditions will dissipate and policy will turn less friendly, setting the stage for a major slowdown - and possibly a recession - in 2019. Stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit, but be prepared to reduce exposure next spring. Feature Risk Assets Hit The Pause Button After rallying nearly non-stop following the U.S. presidential election, risk assets have stalled since early March (Chart 1). The S&P 500 has fallen by 1.8% after hitting a record high on March 1st. Treasury yields have also backed off their highs and credit spreads have widened modestly. Globally, the picture has been much the same (Chart 2). The yen - a traditionally "risk off" currency - has strengthened, while "risk on" currencies such as the AUD and NZD have faltered. EM currencies have dipped, as have most commodity prices. Only gold has found a bid. Chart 1A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... Chart 2...And Globally The key question for investors is whether all this merely represents a correction in a cyclical bull market for global risk assets, or the start of a more sinister trend. We think it is the former. Global Growth Still Solid For one thing, it would be a mistake to attach too much significance to the unfolding reality show in Washington. As we discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook,1 the recovery in global growth and corporate earnings began a few months before last year's election and would have likely continued regardless of who won the White House (Chart 3). For now, the global growth picture still looks reasonably bright. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 4). Consumer confidence is also soaring. If history is any guide, this will translate into stronger consumption growth in the months ahead (Chart 5). Chart 3Recovery Predates President Trump Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Chart 5Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 6 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will stay sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings over the remainder of the year. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12.5% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 7 shows that the global earnings revisions ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Chart 7Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Gridlock In Washington? As far as developments in Washington are concerned, it is certainly true that the failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt on the ability of Congress to implement other parts of President Trump's agenda. Despite reassurances from Trump that a new health care bill will pass, we doubt that the GOP can cobble together any legislation that jointly satisfies the hardline views of the Freedom Caucus and the more moderate views of the Republicans in the Senate. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Trump and the Republican Party. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 24 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The bill would have also reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. Now, that would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly Granted, the political fireworks over the past month serve as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy This is not to say that the "Trump Trade" won't fizzle out. It will. But that will be a story for 2018 rather than this year. This is because the disappointment for investors will stem not from the failure to cut taxes, but from the underwhelming effect that tax cuts end up having on the economy. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from lower corporate taxes are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the tax cuts will simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 8From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 8). In his Special Report on U.S. fiscal policy, my colleague Martin Barnes argues that "it is a FALLACY to describe overall non-defense discretionary spending as massively bloated and out-of-control."2 As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and major fiscal stimulus but end up getting neither. Investment Conclusions Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. We prefer European and Japanese equities over the U.S., currency-hedged (See Appendix). As we discussed in detail last week, global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months. By historic standards, it will probably be a mild one. However, with memories of the Great Recession still fresh in most people's minds and President Trump up for re-election in 2020, the response could be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation in the 2020s. Chart 9 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 9Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies And Fantasies," dated April 5, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update We announced last week that we are making major upgrades to our Tactical Asset Allocation Model. In the meantime, we will send you a concise update of our recommendations every month based on a combination of BCA's proprietary indicators as well as our own seasoned judgement (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 2Global Asset Allocation Recommendations (Percent) In a Special Report published last year, we laid out the quantitative factors that have historically predicted stock market returns. Appendix Chart 1 updates the output of that model for the U.S. It currently shows a slightly above-average return profile for the S&P 500 over the next three months. Appendix Chart 1S&P 500: Above Average Returns Over The Next 3 Months Applying this model to the rest of the world yields a somewhat more positive picture for Europe and Japan, given more favorable valuations and easier monetary conditions in those regions. The technical picture has also improved in Europe and Japan. This is especially true with respect to price momentum: After a long period of underperformance, euro area equities have outpaced the U.S. by 11.5% in local-currency terms since last summer’s lows. Japanese stocks have suffered over the past few months, but are still up 12.5% against the U.S. over the same period (Appendix Chart 2). Turning to government bonds, the extreme bearish sentiment and positioning that prevailed in February and early March has been largely reversed, suggesting that the most recent rally in bonds could run out of steam (Appendix Chart 3). Looking ahead, yields are likely to rise anew on the back of strong economic growth and rising inflation. Thus, an underweight allocation to government bonds is warranted, particularly in the U.S. Appendix Chart 2Relative Performance Of Euro Area ##br##And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Appendix Chart 3Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Clients should consult our Q2 Strategy Outlook for a more detailed discussion of the global investment outlook. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades