Estados Unidos

Overweight (High Conviction) For most of the past five years, the narrative in S&P energy stocks has been a sad one; underlying energy prices have failed to sustain a rally and stock prices have been stuck in the doldrums. This time looks different; the resilience of the recovery in the global economy has kept a solid floor underneath oil prices, which are pushing up against 3-year highs. The surprising part of the rally in oil prices is the failure of energy stocks to catch up (top panel). Pricing power in energy is rising at its fastest pace this decade and (for now) the sector wage bill is continuing to contract (second panel). The upshot is that margins are rapidly expanding, albeit still from a very weak base (third panel). While the most positive side of the v-shaped recovery in earnings estimates is now behind the sector (bottom panel), profit forecasts are still moving higher at near-record pace; eventually stock prices have to catch up. Stay overweight.

Highlights The current U.S.-China trade skirmish is essentially the beginning of a new cold war. The U.S. and China are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so trade conflicts will persist. The conflict could evolve into a "game of chicken" - the most dangerous type of game. The U.S. needs Europe's help against China - but an adventure in Iran could cost it that help. Geopolitical risks will cap the rise in bond yields over the next six months, push up oil, and give a tailwind to global defense stocks. Feature The opening salvo of the U.S.-China trade war has caught the investment community by surprise as the market is quickly repricing the odds of a global trade war.1 Nervousness over the breakdown of globalization comes at the same time as our key China view - that Beijing's structural reforms will constrain growth - are beginning to have an impact on global growth (Chart 1).2 Chart 1China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth Fortuitously, we found ourselves in Asia at the onset of "hostilities" and were thus able to see regional investors' reactions in real time. Our clients focused their questions on the economic impact of the announced tariffs (yet to be determined, in our view), constraints facing President Trump (minimal as well), and potential Chinese retaliation (understated). The focus, however, should be on the big picture. The March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on around $50 billion worth of Chinese imports is not just the opening salvo of a trade war. Rather the emerging trade war is the opening salvo of a new cold war, a global superpower competition between the U.S. and China that will define the twenty-first century. Put simply, the U.S. and China are now enemies. Not rivals, competitors, or sparing partners. Enemies. It will take the market some time for investors to internalize this idea and price it properly. Meanwhile, in the short term, fears of a full-born global trade war are overblown. The trade tensions are really only about two countries, with uncertain global implications. Investors are right to be cautious, but risks to global earnings are overstated at this time. How Did We Get Here? The ongoing trade tensions are not merely a product of a nationalist Trump administration that decided to call out China for decades of unfair trade practices. They are also the product of the geopolitical context, which we have defined through three "big picture" themes. These three themes allowed us to correctly forecast that the defining feature of the twenty-first century would be a Sino-American conflict. We would be thrilled to see this culminate merely in a trade war. The themes are: Multipolarity (Chart 2)3 Apex of globalization (Chart 3)4 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics (Chart 4)5 Chart 2Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Chart 3When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines Chart 2 elucidates a key lesson of history: the collapse of British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century ushered in two world wars. Political science, game theory, and history teach us that periods of multipolarity are rarely peaceful.6 Today's world is not exactly multipolar, as the U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, regional powers - such as China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and perhaps Turkey and Brazil - have a lot more room to maneuver within their spheres of influence. This means that global rules written by the U.S. at the conclusion of the Second World War are being rewritten for regional contexts. Normatively there is nothing wrong with this process. But practically, multipolarity means that "challenger powers" - such as China today or the German empire in the late nineteenth century - seek to undermine rules and norms of behavior that they had little or no say in setting up. And such rules are necessary to underpin geopolitical stability and grease the wheels of globalization. As Chart 3 shows, trade globalization peaked in the past when the hegemon could no longer enforce global rules. We have therefore emphasized to clients since 2014 that, if we are right that the world is multipolar, then we are essentially at the apex of globalization. A parallel process has seen the breakdown of the laissez-faire consensus, which underpinned the expansion of trade in goods, labor, and capital across sovereign borders. Economic globalization has lifted many boats around the world, but outsourcing - combined with technological innovation - has seen the lower middle class in developed nations face diminishing returns (Chart 4). Chart 4Globalization: No Friend To Developed-Market Middle Class That said, a revolt against globalization and "globalists" is thus far mainly an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and particularly an American one. Why? Because the particularities of the U.S. laissez-faire economic model, with its scant social protections, laid its middle class bare to the vagaries of globalization and technological change (Chart 5). However, there is no guarantee that other DM countries will not succumb to the same pressures down the line. Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve: Or, How Anglo-Saxons Turned Against Laissez Faire This background is important for investors because merely blaming a nationalist Trump administration or a mercantilist Beijing for today's tensions ignores the underlying context. President Trump can change his mind on a dime, but the geopolitical context can only evolve slowly.7 Mercantilism is here to stay; it is a feature, not a bug, of a multipolar world. Contrast today's tensions with those of the 1970s and 1980s between the U.S. and its major trade partners. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord ended overt trade protectionism by the U.S. (in 1971), and threats thereof (in 1985), by securing the compliance of these trade partners with Washington's currency and trade demands. Japan further conceded to U.S. demands in 1989 after a two-year trade war. Today, the U.S. and China are not geopolitical allies huddled under the same nuclear umbrella for protection against an ideologically fueled rival. They are ideological rivals. The reason it took a decade for the conflict to erupt is two-fold. First, the U.S. became entangled in the global war on terror after 9/11, which took its focus off of its emerging competitor in Asia. Second, the consensus view - that China would asymptotically approach a Western democracy as it embraced capitalism - has proven to be folly.8 Bottom Line: The China-U.S. trade conflict is a product of today's particular geopolitical context. At heart, it is a conflict for geopolitical primacy in the twenty-first century and thus unlikely to end quickly. Sino-American Conflict Is Intractable The current U.S.-China trade tensions are more of a skirmish than a war. We think that there is considerable room for a step-down in tensions over the next 12 months. First, the Trump administration has not launched an economic war against China. Not only has the U.S. restricted its list of Chinese goods under tariff consideration to just $50 billion of imports - roughly 12% of total Chinese exports to the U.S. - but it has decided to bring a case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is hardly a move by a mercantilist administration dead-set on across-the-board economic nationalism. Second, China has responded almost immediately by offering several concessions, including renewing pledges to open its economy to inward investment and to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. While these may seem like boilerplate concessions that Beijing has floated before, the current context of trade tensions and domestic structural reforms makes it more likely that Chinese policymakers will follow through on their promises. As such, we can see the current round of tensions tapering off, especially after the U.S. midterm elections. However, we doubt that the structural trajectory of Sino-American relations will be significantly altered even if current tensions subside. First, from China's perspective, its extraordinary economic ascent (Chart 6) is merely the return of the millennium's status quo (Chart 7). The last 180 years - roughly from the beginning of the First Opium War in 1839 to today - were the aberration. During this short period of Chinese weakness, the West - with Britain and then the U.S. at the helm - conspired to restructure global rules and norms of geopolitical and economic behavior without input from the Middle Kingdom. Chart 6China's Economic Rise Has Been Extraordinarily Fast... Chart 7China Sees Its Success As A Return To The Status Quo As such, China's influence in key post-WWII economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF is limited while its military has second-class status even in its own "Caribbean Sea," the South China and East China Seas. From the U.S. perspective, China's growth over the past two decades was made possible by U.S. hegemony. The U.S. secured the global rules and norms that enabled China to integrate seamlessly into the global marketplace and then compete its way to the top. Not only did the U.S. allow China to access its credit-fueled markets, but the U.S. Navy protected China's maritime trade, including vital energy supplies transiting from the Middle East. As a thank you for these efforts, China reneged on its WTO commitments, periodically suppressed its currency, stole American intellectual property, and withheld market access from U.S. corporations via tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Washington policymakers, and not only Trump's hawkish advisors, are turning against China. There is an emerging consensus among the U.S. foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and economic policy elites that: Sino-American economic symbiosis is over (Chart 8); Chart 8U.S.-China ##br##Symbiosis Is Dead Chart 9The U.S. Is Least##br## Exposed To Trade Chart 10China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed The U.S. can afford to confront China over trade because it is the least exposed major economy to global trade (Chart 9); The Chinese have acquired a massive share of global exports without a commensurate opening of their domestic market (Chart 10); Arresting Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft is a national security issue (Chart 11); The U.S. can confront China because it has emerged victorious from every global conflagration in the past (Chart 12). Chart 11China Imports Conspicuously Little U.S. IP Chart 12America Is Chaos-Proof Fundamentally, American policymakers want to see China's rapid economic growth slow, they want to see China's capital markets and companies constrained by openness to global competition, and they want to put a leash on China's catch-up in the technological and manufacturing value chain (Chart 13). This is not their stated objective as it would imply that the U.S. wants to see China weakened, and the Chinese leadership miss its decade and century economic development goals. But this is precisely what the U.S. establishment wants. As such, the political and economic visions of American and Chinese policymakers are directly at odds with one another. What does this mean for investors? Over the past several years we have developed a reputation of being sanguine about geopolitics. While many of our peers in the political analysis industry overstate the probability of geopolitical risk, we have (successfully) bet against the worst-case scenario in several prominent crises.9 We like to think that this is because we combine game theory with an understanding of the underlying power dynamics. By emphasizing constraints, we have successfully identified how power dynamics constrain the worst-case outcome.10 When it comes to Sino-American tensions, however, we have always been alarmists. This is because we believe the constraints to conflict are overstated, not understated. Furthermore, the potential market impact of a new cold war is unclear and potentially very large. Both the U.S. and China fundamentally think they can win a trade war. This means that they are engaged in a "regular game of chicken," named after the 1950s practice of racing hot rods head-on in order to prove one's manhood.11 Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most unpredictable game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to keep driving head on - to stick to their guns - despite the risks. In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Chart 13China's Steady Climb Up##br## The Value Ladder Continues Diagram 1A Regular ##br##Game Of Chicken Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. In the current context, this means that the U.S. assumes that China is driven by economic rationality and will not dare face off against the U.S., which has far less to lose given its modest exposure to global trade. Chinese policymakers, however, also think they can win. They look over the Pacific and see a country riven by political polarization (Chart 14) where half of the country thinks the other is "a threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 15).12 China, meanwhile, has just consolidated its political leadership and feels confident enough in its domestic stability to dabble with growth-constraining economic reforms. Beijing can use any trade tensions with the U.S. to further justify painful reforms. Chart 14Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 15Live And Let Die Who is right? We do not know. And that scares us as it means that the most sub-optimal equilibrium - the bottom-right quadrant of Diagram 1 - is more probable than people think. An important difference maker, one that would alter Beijing's risk calculus considerably, is Europe. Despite being highly leveraged to China's growth, the EU still exports nearly double the value of goods to the U.S. than China (Chart 16). In addition, Europe's trade surplus with the U.S. mostly pays for its deficit with China (Chart 17). Chart 16The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China Chart 17EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China Over the next several months, investors will be able to gauge whether the Trump administration is filled with ideological nationalists who believe in Fortress America or wily realists who know how to get things done. The key question is whether Trump will embrace America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harness it for the trade war with China. If he embraces it, we will predict that the combined forces of U.S. and Europe will successfully force China to concede to the pressure. If Trump fails, however, we could have a prolonged U.S.-China trade war. Early indications are optimistic. The U.S. gave the EU an exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports on March 22, a delay that will end on May 1. This followed a March 21 meeting between EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. We suspect, but have no evidence, that the U.S. asked the EU to join in its effort to force China to change its trade practices at the WTO. As an exporting bloc, the EU has a lot more to lose from attacking China than the U.S. But it also has much to lose from unabated Chinese mercantilism and technological theft, and much to gain if China opens its doors wider. As such, we posit that Europe will, in the end, join the U.S. and Japan in a concerted effort to pressure China. This will increase the probability that Beijing ultimately gives in to trade pressure. In the long term, it will also ensure that President Trump does not break the critical transatlantic alliance with Europe, which would be paradigm shifting. But, on the other hand, it will set China and the West on a collision course. China's and the West's suspicions of each other will ossify. Bottom Line: In the short term, trade tensions are likely overstated as U.S. actions against China are largely muted and restrained. In the long term, the U.S.-China trade war could potentially devolve into a "game of chicken," the most dangerous type of conflict. The key variable will be whether the U.S. administration is savvy enough to arrange European collaboration against China. If the U.S. treats the EU harshly and ignores its transatlantic ally on other issues - such as conflict with Iran, discussed below - we could be in for a wild ride in the coming months and years. Either way, Europe stands to gain from a conflict between China and the U.S. Both sides are likely going to try to enlist the EU on their side. As such, we are opening a long Europe industrials / short U.S. industrials trade. Meanwhile, growing trade tensions, policy-induced slowdown in China, and repricing of geopolitical risks in East Asia and the Middle East should cap global bond yields over the next six months. We take 50.4bps and 54.4bps profits on our short U.S. 10-year government bond vs. German bund and short Fed Funds December 2018 futures trades. Iran: The Next Target Of Trump's "Maximum Pressure" Policy President Trump's North Korea policy worked brilliantly in 2017. The policy of "maximum pressure" combined military maneuvers, economic sanctions, and extremely bellicose rhetoric to convince Pyongyang and regional powers that the U.S. has lowered its threshold for full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. China reacted swiftly, starving North Korea of hard currency through economic sanctions (Chart 18). The result was a declaration by Pyongyang in late November that it had finally completed its quest to obtain a nuclear deterrent (an exaggeration at best), an olive branch for the Olympics, and an offer by Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Chart 18China Gives Kim To Trump The policy of "maximum pressure" yielded such extraordinary results with North Korea that President Trump is now eager to trademark the process and apply it to Iran and potentially other global issues. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has replaced two establishment advisors with hawks. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been replaced with CIA Director and noted Iran-hawk Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been replaced by conservative pundit (and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) John Bolton. Bolton is on record arguing that the U.S. should bomb Iran. The role of the national security advisor varies with the president. Some presidents rely on the position more than others. However, given this administration's inexperience with foreign policy, the role is critical in shaping the White House worldview. The national security advisor manages the staff of the National Security Council (NSC), whose role is to coordinate with the vast network of U.S. intelligence agencies and filter information to the president. Given how large America's foreign, defense, and intelligence establishment is, and given the nature of human and signals intelligence, U.S. presidents often have to act upon diametrically opposing pieces of intelligence. As such, the national security advisor and the NSC can play a critical role in deciding what intelligence makes it to the president's desk and in what context. Staffers in the National Security Council (NSC) are often apolitical. We have been told that several current experts are leftovers from the Obama administration. It is likely that an ideological pundit like John Bolton, who served briefly in the George W. Bush administration, will set out to quickly eliminate non-partisan staffers on the NSC and tilt the information flow away from the empirical to the conspiratorial. With Bolton and Pompeo effectively in charge of U.S. foreign policy it is possible that the U.S. will misapply "maximum pressure" policy to Iran and bungle the complicated coordination with geopolitical allies on China. In particular, the U.S. has to endear itself to the EU if it wants a global economic alliance against China. But the EU also does not want to renegotiate Iran sanctions. Abrogating the 2015 nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - would throw the tentative Middle East equilibrium into chaos. While Iran has played a role in preserving the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it has largely kept its vast network of Shia militias and allies in check, particularly in Lebanon and Iraq. Ironically, it was the Obama administration's "flawed" JCPA that has allowed Trump to focus on China in the first place. As we argued when the deal was signed, the conservative critics of the deal itself were correct. The JCPA did not degrade Iran's nuclear capability but merely arrested it.13 The point of the deal was implicitly to give Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East so that the U.S. could extricate itself and focus on China. The Obama administration assessed, in our view non-ideologically, that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time. If the Trump administration decides not to waive sanctions on May 12, it will be in abrogation of the deal. Unlike North Korea, however, Iran has multiple levers it can deploy against the U.S. and its allies' interests in the region. As such, the policy of "maximum pressure" will create much greater risks when applied to Iran. At the very end, it could be as successful as when applied to North Korea, but our conviction view is much lower (and to remind clients, we were optimists about the strategy when applied to North Korea!).14 Furthermore, and again unlike North Korea, Iran is beset with domestic risks. This actually makes it less likely that Tehran will cooperate with the U.S. North Korea is a simple domestic political system where Kim Jong Un can alter policy on a whim without much domestic pushback. In Iran, the dovish and moderate President Hassan Rouhani has to contend for power with hawks who have been critical of the JCPA. Meanwhile, the restive youth population could rise up at the first sign of elite division or weakness. This complicated domestic dynamic is why we cautioned clients back in January that Iran would likely add geopolitical risk premium to the oil markets.15 Bottom Line: It appears that President Trump, motivated by the success of his "maximum pressure" strategy against North Korea, now thinks he can apply it as successfully to Iran. This raises the prospect that Trump will discontinue the waiver of economic sanctions on May 12, effectively re-imposing a slew of economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies looking to conduct business with it. Geopolitical risks are likely to rise in the Middle East as a result of U.S.-Iran tensions. As we go to publication, Saudi authorities have intercepted another Houthi missile heading towards Riyadh just days after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman visited Washington, D.C. The White House appears to relish the opportunity to fight a war on two fronts, a trade war with China and a geopolitical war with Iran. Expect volatility and an elevated geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. Stay overweight global defense companies across markets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001). 7 Would President Hillary Clinton have avoided a trade war with China? We do not think so. Secretary Clinton was considered a "China Hawk" while at the State Department and pushed for the "Pivot to Asia." Jennifer Harris, the lead architect of Clinton's economic statecraft agenda in the U.S. State Department, recently penned a book that called for greater use of economic tools for geopolitical ends. The book, War By Other Means, introduces the term geoeconomics and calls for the U.S. to use economic instruments to promote and defend national interests. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Blog, "We Read (And Liked)... War By Other Means," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 In 2000, while campaigning on behalf of China's WTO entry, President Bill Clinton remarked, "economically, this agreement (China's WTO entry) is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets ... to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys ..." Please see "Full Text of Clinton's Speech On China Trade Bill," dated March 9, 2009, available at nytimes.com. 9 To name just a few: the risk of an Israeli attack against Iran, the risk of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the risk of Euro Area collapse, the risk of Saudi-Iranian war, the risk of Russian-Turkish war, etc. 10 For the best example of how game theory is combined with our constraint-based paradigm, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 See James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, and "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Overweight (High Conviction) U.S. manufacturers are rarely so excited about exports; the latest ISM manufacturing export subcomponent recently hit a three decade high. While the specter of a global trade spat is disconcerting, our sense is that a generalized trade war will most likely be averted or, if the current executive Administration is to be believed, short-lived. The upshot is that air freight & logistics sales momentum will gain steam in the coming months (second panel). Beyond euphoric survey data readings, hard economic data also corroborate the soft data message. G3 (U.S., the Eurozone and Japan) capital goods orders are firing on all cylinders and probing multi-year highs, underscoring that rising animal spirits are translating into real economic activity (third panel). Importantly, relative valuations are discounting a significantly negative profit backdrop, with the relative price/sales ratio at its lowest level since 2002 (bottom panel). The implication is that the group is well positioned to positively surprise. Bottom Line: The S&P air freight & logistics index has a very attractive reward/risk profile and if we were not already overweight, we would take advantage of recent underperformance to go overweight now. Therefore, we are adding it to our high-conviction overweight list; please see this week's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.

Highlights Economy: There is no imminent danger of a significant deterioration in global growth, but the rate of improvement is peaking. The result of the more moderate pace of economic growth and the mounting threat of protectionism is that there is more two way risk in both bond yields and spreads than there has been for some time. Fed: The message from last week's Fed meeting is that the committee recognizes that the outlook for U.S. growth and inflation has improved. Going forward, we anticipate a more hawkish Fed that is somewhat less responsive to tightening financial conditions. This will keep a floor under Treasury yields and impart volatility to credit spreads. Leveraged Loans: Leveraged loans have not yet started to outperform fixed rate junk bonds, but this will change as we approach the end of the credit cycle and loan coupons follow interest rates higher. Feature Yet another down week for risk assets, and all of a sudden 2018 is shaping up to be a pretty miserable year for spread product (Chart 1). High-Yield corporate bonds have underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 29 basis points year-to-date, and investment grade corporates have underperformed by 90 bps. Meanwhile, the sell-off in Treasuries has also paused and the 10-year yield is now 12 bps below its 2018 peak. Chart 1Annual Excess Returns To Credit What exactly is going on? We identify two catalysts for the recent market moves and consider each in turn. Questioning The Synchronized Global Recovery Market moves during the past few weeks have, to some extent, been driven by investors starting to question the sustainability of the so-called "synchronized global recovery". The strong pace of global growth has been a key driver of higher bond yields and risk asset outperformance, and most indicators suggest this trend remains intact. The Global Manufacturing PMI is high compared to recent years, and our PMI diffusion index shows that only 1 out of 36 countries has a PMI below the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2). Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is similarly elevated, and has a diffusion index that has mostly been in positive territory since mid-2016 (Chart 2, panel 2). But last week we received some evidence that this rapid pace of growth may not persist. Flash PMIs predict that the Eurozone Manufacturing PMI will fall to 56.6 in March, down from a recent peak of 60.6 (Chart 2, panel 3). Similarly, the Japanese PMI is predicted to fall to 53.2 in March, down from a recent peak of 54.8 (Chart 2, bottom panel). There is no Flash PMI data for China, the country with the largest weighting in the Global PMI index, but leading indicators suggest that Chinese PMI will also moderate in the months ahead. This is a risk we have flagged in several recent reports.1 Granted, these are all strong PMI readings that are still well above the 50 boom/bust line, but the pace of improvement has clearly moderated and this sort of marginal change often causes investors to extrapolate weaker growth into the future. This appears to be exactly what is happening. The Global ZEW index, a survey of investors' economic sentiment, fell in March (Chart 3). The BCA Carry Canary Indicator, a composite measure of emerging market currency trades geared to global growth, has also weakened (Chart 3, panel 2). Meanwhile, cyclical equity sectors (excluding technology) have not managed to outperform defensives even as Treasury yields have risen, a break from the prior correlation (Chart 3, panel 3). Of the four market-based indicators that most closely track the 10-year Treasury yield, only our Boom/Bust Indicator is not currently pointing to lower yields in the near-term (Chart 3, bottom panel). As usual, we turn to our 2-Factor Treasury Model to assess the impact of moderating global growth on the 10-year Treasury yield. At present, the model - which is based on the Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar - pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.96% (Chart 4). However, if we assume that Flash PMI readings for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan are accurate, and also that PMIs in the rest of the world and dollar sentiment stay flat at current levels, then the fair value reading from our model will drop to 2.85% when the final March PMI data are released next week. This is not far from the current yield level, and could even be an optimistic forecast if the Chinese PMI starts to roll over, as we expect. Chart 2Global Recovery Still Intact Chart 3Global Growth Warning Signs Chart 42-Factor Treasury Model Of course the global economy also has to contend with the possibility of an escalating trade war between the U.S. and China. Markets reacted last week as the U.S. government ramped up the pressure by announcing a 25% tariff on $50-$60 billion worth of trade with China. While the immediate economic impact of these measures is highly uncertain, our Geopolitical strategists view an escalating trade war as a real possibility during the next 1-2 years.2 Bottom Line: There is no imminent danger of a significant deterioration in global growth, but the rate of improvement is peaking. The result of the more moderate pace of economic growth and the mounting threat of protectionism is that there is more two way risk in both bond yields and spreads than there has been for some time. Stay tuned. A Less Supportive Fed Chart 5Fed Versus Market The second catalyst driving bond markets at the current juncture is that the Fed is providing markets with a less accommodative monetary back-drop. Faced with a firmer outlook for U.S. growth and inflation, the Fed is now somewhat less responsive to tighter financial conditions than it has been during the past few years. This hawkishness will put a floor under Treasury yields going forward, and is also the most immediate risk to credit spreads, as we have explained in several recent reports.3 Chart 6The Fed's Phillips Curve Model Case in point, the Fed went ahead with a rate hike at last week's FOMC meeting despite the recent turbulence in financial markets. Not only that, but FOMC participants generally revised up their projections for both economic growth and the fed funds rate. The same number of participants (6) now expect four rate hikes this year as expect three. Last December only four participants expected four or more rate hikes in 2018. Further, the committee's median projection for the fed funds rate at the end of 2019 rose from 2.7% to 2.9%, the median for the end of 2020 rose from 3.1% to 3.4%, and even the median federal funds rate expected to prevail in the longer run rose from 2.8% to 2.9%. The market has moved a long way towards the Fed's dots in recent months, but is still somewhat more pessimistic. The overnight index swap curve is priced for slightly more than three rate hikes in 2018 (including last week's), but is below the Fed's median projection for 2019, 2020 and the longer run (Chart 5). As mentioned above, the Fed also revised up its projections for economic growth and the pace of labor market tightening. The Fed is now looking for an unemployment rate of 3.6% by the end of next year, well below its estimated 4.5% natural rate. At the same time, however, the Fed left its projections for core inflation largely unchanged leaving some to question whether the Fed is re-assessing its commitment to the Phillips curve. In fact, the following question was asked to Chairman Powell at last week's post-meeting press conference:4 Question: Interesting changes in the forecast. A higher growth forecast [...]. Lower unemployment, [...]. And yet, very little change in inflation. What does that say about what you and the Committee believe about the inflation dynamic? Answer: [...] that suggests that the relationship between changes in slack and inflation is not so tight. [...] It has diminished, but it's still there. In other words, the Chairman refused to dismiss the Phillips curve framework altogether but acknowledged that the slope is very flat. The implication is that the labor market will have to run hot for the next couple of years for the Fed to achieve its inflation target. By our assessment, the Fed's projections for the unemployment rate and inflation seem fairly reasonable. Chart 6 shows an expectations-augmented Phillips curve model of core inflation that we re-created from a 2015 Janet Yellen speech.5 Using the Fed's median projections for the unemployment rate, and also holding relative import prices and inflation expectations flat, the model projects that core inflation will rise during the next two years, but will remain slightly below the Fed's target. In other words, the Fed's inflation forecasts seem to agree with the empirical data. In Search Of A More Robust Phillips Curve One of the reasons that the Phillips curve is so flat is that while core PCE inflation includes some prices that respond briskly to labor market slack, it also includes many prices that are less driven by labor slack and more by idiosyncratic factors. The price of imported goods being a prime example. Recent research from the San Francisco Fed splits out those prices that are more sensitive to labor slack - procyclical inflation - from those that are less sensitive to labor slack - acyclical inflation.6 Interestingly, it is the acyclical components that have caused core inflation to run below the Fed's target in recent years, while procyclical inflation has been well above 2% (Chart 7). This framework is helpful because it allows us to estimate a more robust Phillips curve on just the components of inflation that are most sensitive to tightness in the labor market. For example, when we estimate a Phillips curve relationship on just procyclical inflation (excluding housing), the model shows that this component of inflation will rise by 0.18% for every percentage point decline in the unemployment rate. When we estimate the Phillips curve model on overall core PCE we find that a 1 percentage point decline in the unemployment rate only raises core PCE inflation by 0.09%. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that if the unemployment rate follows the path predicted by the Fed, then procyclical inflation (ex. housing) will rise during the next two years, and should stay above the Fed's 2% target. Our own model of housing inflation also shows that its deceleration should reverse in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). Chart 7Acyclical Components A Drag On Inflation Chart 8TCore Inflation Will Move Higher As for the acyclical components of inflation, in a prior report we discussed why health care inflation should rise during the next two years, and this has so far been confirmed by strong producer price data (Chart 8, panel 3).7 For the remaining acyclical components, of which 41% are goods and 59% are services, we would expect that at least the goods component will rise in response to the recent acceleration in non-oil import prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). In conclusion, there is reason to expect some upside in each component of core inflation. We anticipate that core inflation will move higher in the coming months and that the Fed will respond with continued gradual rate hikes. Bottom Line: The message from last week's Fed meeting is that the committee recognizes that the outlook for U.S. growth and inflation has improved. Going forward, we anticipate a more hawkish Fed that is somewhat less responsive to tightening financial conditions. This will keep a floor under Treasury yields and impart volatility to credit spreads. Leveraged Loan Update Chart 9Loan Coupons Will Rise We continue to recommend that investors favor floating rate leveraged loans over fixed rate high-yield bonds in their credit portfolios. The two main reasons for this recommendation are that (i) loans will benefit from higher coupons as the Fed lifts rates and LIBOR resets higher and (ii) loans will benefit from higher recoveries than bonds when the next default cycle occurs. However, somewhat puzzlingly, as 3-month LIBOR has increased during the past few years the coupon return on the S&P Leveraged Loan index has not kept pace. In fact, leveraged loans only started to outperform fixed rate junk a couple of months ago (Chart 9). There are two reasons for this. First, many leveraged loans have LIBOR floors at around 1%, so initial increases in LIBOR in 2016 had no impact on leveraged loan coupons. But 3-month LIBOR is now well above 1%, and yet leveraged loan coupons are still not rising. This is because issuers have been aggressively refinancing loans at lower spreads as LIBOR has increased. This spread compression has kept coupon payments low, but history tells us that this dynamic cannot persist. Eventually, as credit spreads stop tightening near the end of the credit cycle, issuers will not be able to reduce their interest costs through refinancing and will be forced to accept higher coupon payments as interest rates rise. Notice that even though the average price on the S&P Leveraged Loan index was higher between 2004 and 2006 than it is today, that did not prevent loan coupons from rising alongside LIBOR, after some initial lag (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Leveraged loans have not yet started to outperform fixed rate junk bonds, but this will change as we approach the end of the credit cycle and loan coupons follow interest rates higher. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://gps.bcaresearch.com/blog/view_blog/460 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Brainard Gives The Green Light", dated March 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 A full transcript of the post-meeting press conference: https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20180321.pdf 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 6 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2017-35.pdf 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights After the March FOMC Meeting, market pricing for short-term rates is largely consistent with the Fed's forecasts. For investors and the Fed, the health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes. However, the U.S. / China trade disputes will now take center stage. How can investors prepare for the trough in Citigroup Economic Surprise Index? Investors remain skeptical that the unemployment rate can fall to 3.5% and wonder what pace of monthly payroll growth would be required to get it there. Feature The S&P 500 fell more than 2% last Thursday after President Trump announced a new round of tariffs aimed at China. Treasury yields drifted modestly lower, and the trade weighted dollar fell 1%. Credit spreads widened. The trade tensions and the softer dollar drove gold up by nearly 3%. Meanwhile, another drawdown in oil inventories drove WTI oil nearly 5% higher. The VIX climbed last week, and has more than doubled since the start of the year. The market largely ignored last week's FOMC meeting. Fed Chair Powell stuck to the script at his first post-meeting press conference, but noted that trade was a topic of discussion. The "...For Inflation" section of this week's report provides more detail on Fed's view of the economy and rates. U.S. risk assets also sold off last week as market participants reacted negatively to Trump's political woes and trade policies. BCA's view is that investors should fade the former and focus on the later. We discuss Trump's political situation, as well as the trade tensions in the second section of this week's report ("...For the Next Tweet"). Nearly all the data in last week's sparse economic calendar exceeded expectations. At 1.8%, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate for Q1 finished the week where it started. An unusual run of harsh winter weather in the Northeastern U.S. in March will keep downward pressure on the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index for the next month or so. We provide more detail on the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index and the performance of risk assets as the index rises and falls in the "...For The Washout" section of this week's report. Moreover, in the final section of the report ("...For The Labor Market"), we discuss how the unemployment rate can get to BCA's target of 3.5% in the next 12 months. ... For Inflation As widely expected, the FOMC last week delivered its sixth rate hike of the cycle and Fed members were more optimistic on the economic outlook. However, U.S. trade policy is a cloud over the outlook. The Fed downgraded its assessment of current economic conditions, but upgraded the outlook. The current pace of economic activity was described as "moderate" and opposed to "solid" in the previous FOMC statement. This reflects some disappointing data releases, which is also apparent in the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model forecasting just 1.8% growth in Q1. But the Fed does not expect the softness to persist and noted that "the economic outlook has strengthened" (details below in "...For the Washout"). This was reflected in the updated economic projections. GDP growth forecasts were revised to 2.7% and 2.4% for 2018 and 2019, respectively (Chart 1). That's up from 2.5% and 2.1%, and comfortably above the Fed's 1.8% estimate for potential growth. As a consequence, the Fed expects the unemployment rate to drop to 3.6% in 2019, which would be well below the Fed's revised 4.5% estimate of full employment (details below in "...For the Labor Market"). Despite growth being above-trend and the jobless rate falling far below NAIRU, FOMC participants are not forecasting a major acceleration in inflation. From 1.9% in 2018, core PCE inflation is seen fairly steady at 2.1% in 2019 and 2020. To some degree, the upward pressure on inflation will be mitigated by a higher path for the Fed funds rate. Although the median projection remains for three rate hikes this year, the Fed expects slightly faster rate hikes in 2019 and 2020 (Chart 2). The Fed funds rate is now expected to end 2020 at 3.375%, up from 3.125% expected in December. This will put monetary policy on the tighter side of the Fed's 2.875% estimate of the neutral rate. Chart 1The FOMC'S Latest Forecasts Chart 2Market And The Fed In Agreement On Rates Of course, the path of the Fed funds rate will depend on the degree of slack in the economy and the resulting inflationary pressures. The Fed could be underestimating the inflationary pressures associated with a jobless rate that will be nearly 1% below NAIRU. Alternatively, a rising participation rate could slow the decline in the unemployment rate, or the Fed's estimate of NAIRU could get revised much lower. Finally, while the fiscal stimulus is behind the Fed's more optimistic outlook, U.S. trade policy is a growing downside risk (details below in "...For the Next Tweet"). During his press conference, Fed Chair Powell said that FOMC members were aware of the risk, but it was not incorporated into their forecasts. President Trump announced tariffs on China last week. China may then retaliate with its own tariffs. As we've said before, nobody wins from trade wars. Economic activity will be weaker and prices will be higher. A full blown trade war could jeopardize the Fed's rosy forecasts. Bottom Line: Market pricing for short-term rates is largely consistent with the Fed's forecasts. Therefore, the outcome of last week's FOMC meeting is not very market relevant. Investors are more focused on trade policy for now. ... For The Next Tweet BCA is looking beyond any market volatility induced by President Trump's political scandals.1 The decision to impeach President Trump is a purely political decision that rests with the House of Representatives. Under GOP control, Trump will not likely be impeached if he continues to fire his White House aides or members of his cabinet. That is his purview as President. However, relieving Special Counsel Mueller of his duties would probably be a red line for House Republicans and lead to impeachment. That said, it is very difficult to see the impeachment in the House lead to Trump's removal by the Senate, given his elevated approval ratings among GOP voters (Chart 3). Trump's support with GOP voters, our Geopolitical Strategy service's critical measure of whether Trump can stay in power, is back at 2016 election levels with GOP voters (Chart 3). Furthermore, conviction in the Senate (and removal from office), requires 67 votes. If the Democrats take the House, they are likely to impeach Trump in 2019. But even if the Democrats retake the Senate this fall, they would fall far short of that 67-vote threshold for conviction. For investors and the Fed, the health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes. Equity markets performed well when the economy and earnings backdrop was favorable during presidential scandals in the 1920s and the 1990s. In the early 1970s, amid soaring inflation and the worst recession since the Great Depression, there was a bear market in equities (Chart 4A). Likewise, surges in equity market volatility amid political scandals were related more to economic and financial events than politics (Chart 4B). Chart 4AFor Markets,##BR##Economy Matters More Than Politics Chart 4BMarket Volatility During##BR##U.S. Political Scandals Today's environment - while not as robust as in the 1920s or late 1990s - provides support for higher stock prices, above-trend economic growth, escalating inflation, three more Fed rate hikes this year, and higher Treasury bond yields. Moreover, none of the issues that investors care about (tax cuts, deregulation, lifting of the spending caps, etc.) can be reversed by Trump's impeachment. Even a Democratic wave in this fall's mid-term Congressional elections will not deliver the opposition party a veto-proof majority (Chart 5). Thus, in the current economic cycle, we expect pro-market forces at the legislative and executive branches of government to persist. Chart 5Democrats's Lead in Generic Congressional##BR##Ballot Has Moved Lower This Year However, Trump's political scandals may cost the GOP the House in this fall's mid-term elections. Table 1 and Chart 6 show that political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors.2 The average monthly return on the S&P 500 is considerably higher when the executive and legislative branches are unified. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the President faces a split legislature. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service noted that while the market has cheered the limited scope of tariffs imposed earlier this month, investors may be underestimating the political shifts that underpinned Trump's move. There is little reason to think that protectionism will fade when Trump leaves office. The Administration's decision late last week to introduce sanctions aimed at China represents another escalation of the trade spat initiated in early March. Increased trade tensions with China represent a near-term risk to the markets.3 However, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team notes that the latest round of tariffs suggests that Trump has made a bid to increase negotiation leverage with China rather than launch a protectionist broadside. This is good news in the short term, relative to the worst fears given Trump's lack of legal/constitutional constraints. But in the long term, Trump's latest move on trade policy support's our view that geopolitical risk is moving to East Asia and the U.S. / China conflict is a high-risk scenario that markets are now going to have to start pricing in.4 Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks Chart 6A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Bottom Line: Investors should dismiss the risk of domestic political scandals interrupting the market-friendly policy back drop. However, U.S. / China trade disputes will take center stage. China is motivated to prevent a trade war through significant compromises that Trump can advertise as wins to his audience this November. If Trump accepts these concessions, then the risk of a trade war with China will likely be removed until the next race for President in 2020. ... For The Washout The U.S. economic data have disappointed so far this year, as illustrated by Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 7). The Index peaked at 84.5 in December 2017 and subsequently has moved lower for 64 days. Since early 2011, there were six other episodes when the Surprise Index behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 86 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. The implication is that the trough in the Citigroup Economic Surprise reading may be a month or two away. However, the relatively low economic expectations at end-2017 suggest that the disappointment may be truncated. On the other hand, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with the lifting of budgetary spending caps in early 2018, have likely raised economists' near-term projections. Chart 7U.S. Financial Markets As Economic Surprise Index Declines The performance of key financial markets and commodities since the Economic Surprise Index crested in December 2017 matches the historical record, with a few notable exceptions (Table 2 and Charts 7 and 8). As the Index rolled over in late 2017, stocks beat bonds, credit outperformed Treasuries and the dollar fell, matching previous episodes. However, counter to the historical trend, gold and oil prices have increased and small caps have underperformed in the past three months. Table 2Financial Market Performance As The Economic Surprise Index Falls Chart 8Economic Surprise Approaching A Turning Point Based on BCA's research,5 tactical investors should add to their risk positions as the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index bottoms and begins to climb. As the Economic Surprise Index rises, stocks beat bonds by an average of 8700 bps and in six of the seven episodes since 2011 (Table 3). Furthermore, the performance of stock-to-bond ratio is better when the Economic Surprise Index is accelerating. Table 3 again shows that all asset classes also perform better when the Index climbs. After briefly moving above zero in early 2017 - indicating that inflation data was stronger than analysts projected - the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index rolled over again (Chart 9, top panel) through year end 2017. Reports on the CPI, PPI and average hourly earnings continued to fall short of consensus forecasts despite tightening of the labor and product markets. The disappointment on price data relative to consensus forecasts is not new. Although there were brief periods when prices exceeded forecasts in 2010 and 2011, the last time that inflation exceeded market consensus in this business cycle was in late 2009 and early 2010. In the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Table 3Financial Market Performance As The Economic Surprise Index Rises Chart 9The Fed Cycle And Inflation Surprise Moreover, the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index escalated during previous tightening regimes when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was in accommodative territory (Chart 9). The last time those conditions were in place, which was in 2005, the Fed was wrapping up a rate increase campaign that began in mid-2004. An increase in the Citigroup Inflation Surprise Index also accompanied most of the Fed's rate hikes from mid-1999 through mid-2000. In late 2015, as the current set of rate hikes commenced, the inflation surprise index was on the upswing, the economy was close to full employment and the Fed funds rate was accommodative. Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data will not end for another few months. The unusually harsh winter weather in March in the Northeastern exacerbates the situation. However, the weakness in the economic data is not a sign that a recession is at hand. We expect that the inflation surprise index will continue to grind higher, as unemployment dips further into 'excess demand' territory (details below in "...For The Labor Market"). After the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long credit and underweight duration. ... For The Labor Market BCA expects the unemployment rate to hit 3.5% by late 2018 or early next year, the first time since December 1969. Our base case assumes that the economy will generate 200,000 nonfarm payroll jobs per month and that the labor force participation rate will remain at 63%. The unemployment rate was 4.1% in February 2018 and bottomed at 4.4% in 2006 and 2007; the rate reached a 30-year low at 3.8% in 2000. As noted in the first section of this week's report, at the conclusion of last week's meeting, the FOMC nudged down its view of this year's unemployment rate to 3.8%. The FOMC also slightly adjusted its long-term forecast of the unemployment rate to 4.5%. The implication is that BCA and the FOMC expect the U.S. economy to continue to run below full employment this year. Nonetheless, investors remain skeptical that the unemployment rate can fall to 3.5% and wonder what pace of monthly payroll growth would be required to get it there. In Table 4 we look at various scenarios (monthly increases in payrolls, annual percentage change in participation rate) to show when the unemployment rate will dip below 3.5%. In the past three months, total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 per month, and in the past year, the average monthly increase was 190,000. The participation rate was 63% in February, little changed from a year ago as an improved labor market offset demographic factors that continue to drive down this rate. Our calculations assume that the labor force will expand by 0.9% per year, matching the growth rate in the past 12 months. Chart 10 shows the history of the unemployment rate and several scenarios in the next two years that assume the participation rate stays at 63%. Table 4Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached Chart 10The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios Bottom Line: BCA's view is that the FOMC's forecast for the unemployment rate at the end of 2018 (3.8%) is too high and only marginally lower than the current 4.1% rate. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking more quickly than the March 2018 dots forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. BCA expects the 2/10 Treasury yield curve to steepen through mid-year and then flatten by year-end, spending most of 2018 between 0 and 50 bps. Stay underweight duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Policies Are Stimulative Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Solid Start," dated January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits," dated October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The reward/risk profile of air freight & logistics is extremely attractive. Synchronized global growth, the capex upcycle, a falling dollar and secular advance in e-commerce compel us to add this unloved transportation sub-index to our high-conviction overweight list. Prepare to lock in gains in managed health care. The positive demand and pricing backdrops are already reflected in perky valuations. While homebuilders still have to contend with rising lumber prices and interest rates and the partial elimination of mortgage interest deductibility, the near 20% peak-to-trough drawdown suggests that all of the bad news is baked in relative share prices, warranting an upgrade alert. Recent Changes Add the S&P air freight & logistics index to the high-conviction overweight list. Put the S&P managed care index on downgrade alert. Set an upgrade alert on the S&P homebuilding index. Table 1 Feature Equities lost ground last week and flirted with the bottom part of the trading range established during the past two months, but held the 200-day moving average. Our view remains that the SPX is digesting the early-February swoon, and the buy-the-dip strategy is still appropriate for capital with a cyclical (9-12 month) time horizon as the probability of a recession this year is close to nil. Nevertheless, the recent doubling in the TED spread and simultaneous spike in financials investment grade bond spreads is slightly unnerving (second panel, Chart 1). Junk spreads also widened as investors sought the safety of the risk-free asset. What is behind this fear flare up propagating in risk sensitive assets? First, the Fed continued its tightening cycle last week, raising the fed funds rate another 25bps. As we have been writing in recent research Weekly Reports, rising interest rates go hand-in-hand with increasing volatility (please see Chart 1 from the March 5th Special Report on banks). Thus, as the Fed tightens monetary policy and continues to unwind its balance sheet, the return of volatility will become a key market theme (bottom panel, Chart 1). The implication is that a bumpier ride looms for equities, and the smooth and nearly uninterrupted rise that market participants have been conditioned to expect is now a thing of the past. With regard to the composition of equity returns in the coming year, rising interest rates and volatility signal that the forward P/E multiple has likely crested for the cycle, leaving profits to do all the heavy lifting (Chart 2). Second, rising policy uncertainty (trade and Administration personnel related, please see Chart 1 from last week's publication) is muddying the short-term equity market outlook at the current juncture, and fueling the risk-off phase. However, synchronized global growth, a muted U.S. dollar and easy fiscal policy are a boon to EPS and signal that profit growth will reclaim the driver's seat in coming weeks. Stocks and EPS are joined at the hip and there are good odds that equities will vault to fresh all-time highs on the back of earnings validation as the year unfolds (Chart 3). Chart 1Closely Monitor These Spreads Chart 2EPS Doing The Heavy Lifting Chart 3Profits And Cash Flow Underpin Stocks Importantly, comparing net profit growth to cash flow growth rates is instructive, as SPX EBITDA is not affected by the new tax law. While EPS are slated to grow close to 20% in calendar 2018, the respective forward SPX EBITDA growth rate (based on IBES data) sports a more muted 10% per annum rate (second panel, Chart 4). Similarly, sell side analysts pencil in a visible jump in forward net profit margins, whereas the forward EBITDA margin estimate is stable (middle panel, Chart 4). The recent tax-related benefit is a one-time dividend to profits that will not repeat in 2019. Thus, the market will likely look through this one time effect and start to focus on the calendar 2019 EPS growth number that is a more reasonable 10%, and also similar to next year's EBITDA growth rate. Our sense is that this transition will also be prone to turbulence. Our EPS growth model corroborates this profit euphoria and is topping out near the 20% growth rate (Chart 5). While it will most likely decelerate in the back half of the year, as long as there is no relapse near the contraction zone à la late-2015/early 2016, the equity bull market will remain intact. Chart 4Investors Will See Through The Tax Cut Chart 5EPS Model Flashing Green As we showcased in the early February Weekly Report, four key macro variables are behaving as they have in four prior 20% EPS growth phases since the 1980s excluding the post-recession recoveries (please see the Appendix of the February 5th "Acrophobia" Weekly Report). Therefore, if history at least rhymes, the equity overshoot phase will resume. This week we add a neglected transportation group to the high-conviction overweight list, put a defensive index on the downgrade watch list and set an upgrade alert on a niche early cyclical group. Air Freight & Logistics: Prepare For Takeoff Last week we reiterated our overweight stance in the broad transportation space and today we are compelled to add the undervalued and unloved S&P air freight & logistics index to the high-conviction overweight list. Air freight services are levered to global growth. Currently, synchronized global growth remains the dominant macro theme. Firming export expectations suggest that global trade volumes will get a bump in the coming months (second panel, Chart 6). Importantly, U.S. manufacturers are also excited about exports; the latest ISM manufacturing export subcomponent hit a three decade high. While the specter of a global trade spat is disconcerting, our sense is that a generalized trade war will most likely be averted or, if the current executive Administration is to be believed, short-lived. The upshot is that air freight & logistics sales momentum will gain steam in the coming months (second panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Heed The Signals From Global Growth,##br## Capex And The Greenback Chart 7Domestic Demand##br## Is Also Firm Beyond euphoric survey data readings, hard economic data also corroborate the soft data message. G3 (U.S., the Eurozone and Japan) capital goods orders are firing on all cylinders and probing multi-year highs, underscoring that rising animal spirits are translating into real economic activity (third panel, Chart 6). Chart 8Mistakenly Unloved And Undervalued Tack on the near uninterrupted depreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar and factors are falling into place for a relative EPS overshoot, given the large foreign sales component of this key transportation sub-group (bottom panel, Chart 6). Not only are air freight stocks' fortunes tied to the state of global trade, but this industry is also sensitive to capital outlays. A synchronized global capex cycle is one of the key themes we are exploring in 2018. The third panel of Chart 7 shows that our capex indicator points to a reacceleration in the corporate sales-to-inventories ratio. This virtuous capital spending upcycle, that would get a further lift were an infrastructure bill to be signed into law, is a boon to air cargo services. In addition, as the secular advance in e-commerce continues to make inroads in the bricks-and-mortar share of total retail dollars spent, demand for delivery services will continue to grow smartly, underpinning industry selling prices (bottom panel, Chart 7). As a result, we would look through recent softness in industry pricing power that has weighed on relative performance. Indeed, transportation & warehousing hours worked have recently spiked, corroborating the message from global revenue ton miles (not shown), rekindling industry net earnings revisions (second panel, Chart 8). Importantly, relative valuations are discounting a significantly negative profit backdrop, with the relative price/sales ratio at its lowest level since 2002 (third panel, Chart 8). Similarly, the index is trading at a 10% discount to the broad market's forward P/E multiple or the lowest level since the turn of the century (not shown). Finally, technical conditions are washed out offering a compelling entry point for fresh capital (bottom panel, Chart 8). The implication is that the group is well positioned to positively surprise. Bottom Line: The S&P air freight & logistics index has a very attractive reward/risk profile and if we were not already overweight, we would take advantage of recent underperformance to go overweight now. Therefore, we are adding it to our high-conviction overweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD. Downgrade Alert: Managed Health Care Managed health care stocks have been stellar outperformers not only versus the overall market, but also compared with the broad S&P health care sector. Since the April 2016 inception of our overweight recommendation, they have added considerable alpha to our portfolio to the tune of 21 percentage points above and beyond the SPX's rise (Chart 9). While most of the factors underpinning our sanguine view for health insurers remain intact, from a risk management perspective we are compelled to put them on downgrade alert. Most of the good news is likely baked into relative prices and valuations (bottom panel, Chart 9). In the coming weeks, we will be on the lookout for an opportunity to pull the trigger and crystalize gains and downgrade to a benchmark allocation, especially if defensive equities catch a bid on the back of the current mini risk off phase. Namely, recent inter-industry M&A euphoria is a key catalyst to lighten up on this health care services sub-sector (Chart 10). While regulators have disallowed intra-industry consolidation over the past few years, the M&A premia remained and now the proposed CVS/AET and CI/EXPR deals could be a harbinger of petering out relative valuations and share prices. Chart 9Prepare To Book Gains Chart 10M&A Frenzy True, melting health care inflation is likely a secular theme that is in the processes of reversing three decades worth of health care industry, in general and pharma in particular, pricing power gains. While this is a dire backdrop for drug manufacturers - which remains a high-conviction underweight - it is a clear benefit to HMOs (Chart 11). Health insurance labor costs are also well contained: the employment cost index for this industry is probing multi-year lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). The upshot is that profit margins are on a solid footing. Chart 11Operating Metrics Suggest... Chart 12...To Stay Overweight A While Longer Meanwhile, the overall U.S. labor market is on fire. Last month NFPs registered a month-over-month increase of 300K for the first time in four years and unemployment insurance claims are perched near five decade lows. This represents an enticing demand backdrop for managed health care companies, especially when the economy is at full employment and the government is easing fiscal policy (bottom panel, Chart 11). Despite the still appealing demand and pricing backdrop, the flurry of M&A deals will likely serve as a catalyst to lock in gains and move to a benchmark allocation in the coming weeks as this health care sub-index is priced for perfection. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P managed health care index, but it is now on downgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC. Upgrade Alert: Homebuilders Showing Resiliency In late-November 2017 when we launched our 2018 high-conviction call list, we downgraded the niche S&P homebuilding index to underweight (Chart 13). Our thesis was that the trifecta of rising lumber prices, mortgage interest deductibility blues and rising interest rate backdrop, a key 2018 BCA theme, would weigh on profit margins and, thus, profits would underwhelm. Since then we have monetized gains of 10% versus the SPX and removed this early-cyclical index from the high-conviction underweight list.1 Today we are putting it on upgrade alert. As a reminder, this was not a call based on a souring residential housing view. In fact, we remain housing bulls and expect more gains for the still recovering residential housing market that moves in steady prolonged multi-year cycles (Chart 14). Keep in mind that housing starts are still running below household formation and the job market is heating up. The implication is that the U.S. housing market rests on solid foundations. Chart 13Bounced Off Support Line Chart 14Housing Fundamentals Are Upbeat While interest rates and rising house prices are denting affordability (second and fourth panels, Chart 15), homebuilders share prices have been resilient recently and have smartly bounced off their upward sloping support trend line (Chart 13). Indeed, interest rates may continue to rise from current levels, but as we have highlighted in recent research, there is a self-limiting aspect to the year-over-year rise in the 10-year yield near the 100bps mark. Put differently, any rise above 3.05% on the 10-year Treasury yield in a short time frame would likely prove restrictive for the U.S. economy.2 Encouragingly, the mortgage application purchase index has well absorbed the selloff in the bond market, unlike its sibling mortgage application refinance index, signaling that there is pent up housing demand (second panel, Chart 16). New home sales are expanding anew as price concessions have likely been sufficient to compete with existing homes for sale (top panel, Chart 16). Chart 15Get Ready To Upgrade... Chart 16...Given Receding Profit Margin Risks On the lumber front, prices have gone parabolic year-to-date courtesy of trade war talk and a softening U.S. dollar. However, lumber inflation cannot continue at a 50%/annum pace indefinitely (third panel, Chart 16). While higher lumber prices are a de facto negative for homebuilding profit margins, we deem they are now well reflected in compelling relative valuations (bottom panel, Chart 15). In addition, if we are correct in assessing that housing demand remains upbeat, this will give some breathing room to homebuilders to partly pass on some of this input cost inflation to the consumer. Bottom Line: The S&P homebuilding index remains an underweight, but it is now on our upgrade watch list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME-DHI, LEN, PHM. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Housekeeping In Turbulent Times," dated February 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Underweight U.S. airline stocks hit a patch of turbulence this week when Southwest, usually known for being the price disrupter amongst airline peers, dropped their Q1 revenue guidance "primarily due to the competitive fare environment". We have been flagging a looming price war since United Airlines announced a significant and prolonged capacity expansion plan earlier this year, underpinning our preference to avoid the S&P airlines index. In fact, airfares have been losing share of the customer's wallet for more than a year now and the downtrend is accelerating (second panel). This is further evidenced by airlines' eroded ability to pass through higher jet fuel prices, which have historically been the marginal price setter (third panel). The upshot of declining revenues and rising costs is stalling margins (bottom panel); investors would be wise to skip this flight and stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.

Overweight The S&P containers & packaging index has been underperforming since the beginning of the year as the spiking input costs of last year materialized in soft Q4 earnings, compounded by fears over a trade war. However, those costs have fallen substantially since the end of the year (second panel) and gross margins should eventually return to normal; trade fears have moderated. In the longer term, we think the focus should remain on the drivers of demand, namely global growth (a key BCA theme for this year). Both volumes and prices have maintained a steady uptrend (third panel) and the sell side has taken notice as relative forward EPS are climbing at the fastest pace in a decade (bottom panel). Combined with the index's weak performance YTD, a sizeable buying opportunity is taking shape; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, PKG, SEE, AVY.

Underweight Last week we downgraded the S&P consumer discretionary index to a below benchmark allocation on the back of three key factors: a rising fed funds rate, quantitative tightening and higher prices at the pump. One of the charts we published, and are reprinting today, caught the attention of our good friend, who I refer to as the "smartest man in California", and he suggested a few of interesting tweaks to drive a point home. First, he recommended to switch the fed funds rate to the shadow fed funds rate, or the Wu-Xia model, in order to better capture the fact that the Fed was still easing monetary policy below the zero line post December, 2008 and until December, 2015 via QE (top panel). Second, if we were to exclude AMZN from the day the S&P included it in the SPX and the S&P 500 consumer discretionary index (November 21st, 2005), then the chart would highlight that the vast majority of consumer discretionary stocks are actually following the typical historical relationship with the Fed's tightening cycle (top panel). Finally, while AMZN has a heavy weight in the broad consumer discretionary index (21%), its earnings weight is quite low (1.5%). Thus, overall consumer discretionary profits are indeed following the Fed's historical tightening path (second panel). Bottom line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P consumer discretionary sector. Category: Consumer Discretionar

Highlights Fed preview: The Fed will hike rates again this week, and may signal a faster pace of future hikes given signs that U.S. inflation is starting to accelerate. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance and stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. Oversold U.S. Treasuries: While most indicators of positioning and momentum for U.S. Treasuries show a deeply oversold market, an analysis of past such episodes shows that it can take 4-6 months before bond yields correct an oversold condition in the absence of slowing growth or inflation - with yields potentially hitting new highs in the interim. ECB Tapering: The ECB strongly believes that the "stock effect" of its asset purchases matters more for European bond yields than the "flow effect". This suggests that the odds of a European "Taper Tantrum" later this year are low, although bond yields there are still headed higher. Feature Chart of the WeekThis Time Is Different? Global bond markets have calmed down after the big surge that started the year. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has traded in a relatively narrow 2.80-2.95% range since the VIX spike in early February, despite a string of weaker-than-expected U.S. economic data prints that has triggered sharp downgrades to Q1/2018 U.S. GDP growth forecasts. At the same time, 10-year benchmark yields for other major government bond markets (Germany, France, U.K., Canada) have been drifting lower, but remain above levels that began the year. In the case of U.S. Treasuries, the overall level of yields is being held up by the steady climb at the short-end of the yield curve. Recent hawkish comments from new Fed Chairman Jay Powell and long-time Fed dove Lael Brainard have raised expectations for a rate hike at this week's FOMC meeting, which is now priced as a certainty. The 2-year Treasury yield has climbed to a 10-year high of 2.3%, which is helping keep a floor underneath longer-term Treasury yields despite positioning indicators showing that traders and bond managers already have significantly reduced duration exposure (Chart of the Week). The other factor that is likely holding up global bond yields is the incremental move by the European Central Bank (ECB) towards a tapering of its asset purchases. The market has already repriced both future interest rate expectations and the term premia embedded in European government bond yields, although recent comments from ECB officials suggest that they believe that there will not be a "Taper Tantrum 2.0" in Europe similar to the Treasury market sell-off in 2013. This week, we tackle those two critical issues for bond markets head-on: the implications of large short positions in the U.S. Treasury market versus the ECB taper impact on global bond yields. Our conclusion is that the impact of both is likely overestimated by investors. How To Think About A Technically Oversold Treasury Market The Fed will deliver another rate hike this week. That outcome has already been fully discounted by the market, which should not be considered surprising given the current U.S. economic backdrop: Inflation: Underlying inflation has clearly bottomed out and has begun to accelerate, with the 3-month annualized growth rate of core CPI inflation now up over 3% (Chart 2). That trend should continue in the next several months: our model for CPI Shelter inflation is calling for a pickup (2nd panel), core goods inflation is showing signs of responding to the weakening U.S. dollar (3rd panel), and the big plunge in U.S. wireless phone prices that severely dampened inflation in 2017 is about to wash out of the year-over-year CPI data and boost core services inflation (bottom panel). Growth: Despite some recent signs of softening momentum in the Q1 data, the underlying trend in U.S. growth remains upbeat. Labor demand is accelerating and our payrolls growth model suggests further gains are coming (Chart 3). Corporate profit growth remains solid and the impact of the Trump tax cuts will only boost earnings momentum and business confidence. Leading economic indicators are also accelerating and suggest that any loss of growth momentum in Q1 - which seems to be an annual occurrence despite the seasonal adjustment of data - will be short-lived (bottom panel). Chart 2U.S. Inflation Is Starting To Perk Up Chart 3No Reason For Any Dovish Fed Surprises Financial Conditions: U.S. equity prices have recovered much of the losses suffered during the February VIX-driven correction, while corporate credit spreads remain narrow from a historical perspective (Chart 4). Add in the weaker U.S. dollar - the impact of which is already boosting import prices and potentially following through into the shorter-term inflation expectations of households (bottom panel) - and overall financial conditions remain highly accommodative. Against this positive backdrop, the Fed can feel confident that its growth and inflation forecasts for 2018 will be achieved, and that inflation expectations can continue to climb back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. There is even a chance that the Fed could accelerate its planned pace of rate hikes (Chart 5), particularly if there is an upgrade to the FOMC growth and inflation projections, which will be updated for this week's meeting. Chart 4U.S. Financial Conditions##BR##Remain Accommodative Chart 5All Eyes On##BR##The Dots This Week Yet for all the positive economic, bond-bearish news, one fact stands out - the U.S. Treasury market is deeply oversold from a technical perspective. This should, in theory, limit the ability for bond yields to continue rising and could set up a short-covering bond rally if there is a more meaningful and prolonged slowing of economic growth or inflation. The technical indicators that we regularly monitor for the U.S. Treasury market are all at or near the extremes of the ranges observed since 2000 (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Treasuries Are Very Oversold The 10-year Treasury yield is 43bps above its 200-day moving average The 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index is -4.3% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders showed the largest underweight duration positioning since the mid-2000s, although there has been some recent reduction of those positions The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is now at 49, near the bottom of the range since 2000 The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures shows a large net short of -8%, scaled by open interest Given this degree of investor negativity toward U.S. Treasuries, some pullback in yields seems inevitable. However, a look back at past episodes where Treasuries were this oversold shows that the timing of such a pullback is highly variable - anywhere from one month to seven months. The determining factor is the growth and inflation backdrop in the U.S. To show this, we did a simple study using two series from our list of Treasury technical indicators. Specifically, we looked at "oversold episodes" since 2000 where the Market Vane Treasury sentiment index dipped below 50 and where the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield fell back below its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the duration (in days), and change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were eleven such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we list them ranked by the number of days it took to complete each episode as we defined it. The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between July 2003 and February 2004, where 203 days passed before the 10-year yield dipped back below its 200-day moving average. The shortest correction was in May 2000, where only 28 days were needed. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market To determine what the U.S. economic backdrop was during each episode, we then simply asked if economic growth was rising or falling, or if inflation was stable/rising or falling, using the ISM Manufacturing index and core PCE inflation as the relevant data series. The answers to those questions are found in the final two columns of Table 1. All the positioning and economic indicators used in our historical study, shaded for the oversold episodes, are shown in Charts 7, 8 and 9. Chart 7U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2000-2005 Chart 8U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2006-2011 Chart 9U.S. Treasury Market##BR##Oversold Episodes 2011 To Today The simplest conclusion that we reached from our study is that the shortest corrections of an oversold Treasury market occurred, unsurprisingly, during the two episodes where both growth and inflation were slowing, with an average length of each episode of 42 days. The four episodes where growth and inflation were both rising had a more variable performance, lasting anywhere from 98 days to 203 days, averaging 156 days per episode. The five episodes where growth was slowing but inflation was stable or rising were also of varying length, averaging 140 days. In other words, it has taken around five months, on average, to correct an oversold Treasury market when inflation was stable or rising, and about 1.5 months when inflation was falling. In the current environment, where the ISM Manufacturing index is in an uptrend and core PCE inflation is rising, we should expect a longer period of time before the Treasury market corrects its oversold condition. If we mark the start of the current episode on February 20th of this year, using the definition described above, then the 10-year Treasury yield may return to its 200-day moving average of 2.4% by August (five months from now). A word of warning for traders and investors looking to play for that move by flipping to a long duration position now, though - the primary trend of the market, defined by that 200-day moving average, is currently rising. It was also rising during the two longest oversold correction episodes 2003-04 and 2013-14. The 10-year Treasury yield only declined -14bps and -17bps, respectively, over those entire episodes. During the 2013-14 episode, also a period similar to today when growth and inflation were both rising, yields actually climbed to new cyclical highs before finally peaking. In other words, betting on a reversal of an oversold bond market without any deterioration in growth and inflation dynamics may generate only modest returns over a lengthy period, and with substantial mark-to-market volatility in the meantime. In the current cycle, with leading indicators for U.S. growth and inflation accelerating and the Fed becoming more hawkish, we recommend maintaining below-benchmark duration positions in the U.S. rather than positioning now for a short-covering rally. Bottom Line: The Fed will hike rates again this week, and may signal a faster pace of future hikes given signs that U.S. inflation is starting to accelerate. While most indicators of positioning and momentum for U.S. Treasuries show a deeply oversold market, an analysis of past such episodes shows that it can take 4-6 months before bond yields correct an oversold condition in the absence of a slowing of economic growth or inflation - with yields potentially hitting new highs in the interim. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance and stay underweight U.S. Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. The ECB Is Betting On A Tantrum-Free Taper Several key ECB officials have been giving speeches over the past week, spelling out a consistent message to the markets on the future of euro area monetary policy. Most notably, ECB President Mario Draghi and ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet gave speeches last week at a conference in Frankfurt. Both of them used nearly identical language to highlight how the ECB's main policy tool going forward will no longer be net asset purchases, but instead will be interest rates and forward guidance on changes to rates.1 This echoes the message sent after the ECB's policy meeting earlier this month, when the commitment to increase the pace of asset purchases was dropped from the ECB policy statement. Both Draghi and Praet repeated the ECB's official stance on the end of asset purchases, which requires a "sustained adjustment" in the path of inflation. This was described by Draghi as: Specifically, a sustained adjustment requires three conditions to be in place. [...] The first is convergence: headline inflation has to be on course to reach our aim over a meaningful definition of the medium term. The second is confidence: we need to be sure that this upward adjustment in inflation has a sufficiently high probability of being realized. The third condition is resilience: the adjustment in inflation has to be self-sustained even without additional net asset purchases. Draghi then went on to add these comments on the sequencing of rate hikes after the asset purchases are completed, with our emphasis added: [...] when progress towards a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation is judged to be sufficient, net purchases will come to an end. At that point, next to our forward guidance, appropriate financial conditions will be maintained by our reinvestment policy. [...] as regards the evolution of our policy rates beyond the end of our net purchases, we will maintain the sequencing that is currently set out in our forward guidance, namely our pledge to keep key interest rates at their current levels "well past" the end of net purchases. This time-based element of our guidance is already vital today, in particular to ensure that our policy stimulus is not weakened by premature expectations of a first rate rise, and so financial conditions remain consistent with inflation convergence. That last line can be roughly translated from policymaker-speak as "we want to avoid a Fed-style Taper Tantrum when we stop buying euro area government bonds." Chart 10An Orderly Repricing Of ECB Expectations Praet made similar comments in his speech, discussing how the first rate hike after the end of asset purchases must only take place once there is a "durable convergence" of euro area inflation with the ECB target of just below 2% on headline inflation. So far, the markets have been heeding the ECB's communication and policy guidance. The timing of the ECB's first full 25bp rate hike, taken from our "months-to-hike" indicator, shows that the market does not expect the ECB to adjust rates until November of 2019 (Chart 10). At the same time, the market is only slowly repricing the term premium on longer-dated euro area government bonds, which would be expected if the ECB were to take its time in fully tapering its asset purchases. With realized euro area inflation, and market-based inflation expectations, still well short of the ECB's target, the market appears to be "correctly" following the ECB's guidance on the timetable for future policy moves. This is keeping euro area bond yields at low levels and dampening interest rate volatility. There may be another factor at work holding down bond yields, however. In a speech given at the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum in New York last month - an event attended by numerous academic and Wall Street economists, as well as several current FOMC members - ECB Executive Board Member Benoit Coeure discussed the importance of the "stock" effect of central bank asset purchases compared to the "flow" effect.2 Or as Coeure described it: [...] the "stock effect" - that is, the persistence of the effects of the stock of bonds held by the central bank on its balance sheet under a commitment of reinvestment. If the effects of purchases dissipate quickly, a shorter purchase horizon could lead to term premia rising even as interest rate expectations remain well anchored by forward guidance. Financial conditions would then tighten. But if the effectiveness of asset purchases rises with the stock of assets already acquired - if there is some "crossover point" where the stock effect becomes more important than the continued flow of purchases - then a reduced pace of purchases would not unduly decompress the term premium. This brings up an interesting point about the ECB's policy strategy as it prepares to taper its asset purchase program. If the ECB can effectively communicate that it will continue to reinvest the maturing bonds on its balance sheet after the new asset purchases have stopped, then the market will not price in a bigger term premium on longer-dated bonds since the ECB will continue to own a huge share of the stock of euro area government debt. The stock effect will dominate the diminishing flow effect. Coeure noted in his speech that the experience of the U.S. in 2013, when Ben Bernanke surprised markets with talk that the Fed was planning on cutting back its asset purchases, is different than Europe today. The biggest reason is that the ECB owns a far bigger share of the European bond market than the Fed did at that time. That is because the ECB asset purchases since its bond buying program began in 2015 have dwarfed the net issuance of euro area government debt (Chart 11). At no point during the Fed's quantitative easing (QE) era did the central bank ever buy more U.S. Treasuries than the U.S. government was issuing. According to the logic of Benoit Coeure, the smaller Fed "footprint" in the Treasury market relative to the ECB's ownership share of euro area government bonds (Chart 12) should mean that the Treasury term premium will be more volatile than that for German bunds (and other euro area debt). That is because a greater share of Treasury issuance must be sold to private investors who are more price-sensitive than central banks. In other words, the flow effect dominates the stock effect. Chart 11ECB & BoJ Have Been Absorbing##BR##All Net Government Bond Issuance Chart 12The 'Stock Effect' Of QE##BR##Should Be Bigger In Europe & Japan In Chart 13, we try and visually prove Coeure's thesis. The chart plots the gap between central bank asset purchases and net government bond issuance (the blue solid line proxying the "flow effect", using IMF data) for the U.S., euro area and Japan versus our estimates of the term premium (the black dotted line). The correlation appears to be very strong for the euro area and Japan during the era of asset purchases for those central banks, perhaps due to the "stock effect" dominating the "flow effect". This differs from the experience seen in the U.S. during the Fed QE era, when there was no stable relationship between the term premium and the amount of Treasuries the Fed was purchasing relative to net issuance. Looking ahead, there are important implications of this "stock vs. flow" argument for the future direction of euro area (and Japanese) bond yields, both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. Treasuries. In Chart 13, we also added BCA's forecasts for net government bond issuance over the next two years relative to our projections for the pace of asset purchases from the ECB and BoJ (both new purchases and reinvestments), and the Fed's own projections for the runoff of Treasuries from its balance sheet. Our estimates show that there will still be no new government bond issuance for the private sector to absorb in the euro area and Japan in 2018 and 2019, even with the ECB expected to fully taper new buying to zero by the end of this year and the BoJ dramatically cutting back its pace of buying. This contrasts to the U.S., where the private sector will be forced to absorb an extra US$1 trillion (!) of Treasuries this year and next, thanks to the huge Trump fiscal stimulus and the diminished buying by the Fed. U.S. private investors may require a higher yield (i.e. term premium) to absorb that additional debt, especially if inflation expectations are rising and the Fed is hiking interest rates at the same time. The implication is that the spread between Treasuries and euro area debt (and Japanese bonds, for that matter) could stay stubbornly wide - at least until there is more decisive evidence that the U.S. economy is in a cyclical slowdown that would put the Fed rate hiking cycle on hold (Chart 14). Chart 13The 'Flow Effect' Of##BR##QE Does Still Matter Chart 14The 'Stock Effect' Could Keep The##BR##UST-Bund Spread Wider For Longer From the point of view of euro area debt, however, the existence of a "stock effect" means that those investors expecting a Taper Tantrum 2.0 will likely be disappointed in the size of any upward move in euro area bond yields this year. Bottom Line: The ECB strongly believes that the "stock effect" of its asset purchases (how much they already own) matters more for European bond yields than the "flow effect" (how much they are buying). This suggests that the odds of a European "Taper Tantrum" later this year are low, although bond yields there are still headed higher. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The Draghi speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html, while the Praet speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_2.en.html 2 Coeure's speech can be found at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180223.en.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns