Estados Unidos

Highlights Escalating trade tensions - most notably between the U.S. and China, and the U.S. and its NAFTA partners - threaten the outperformance ags posted in 1Q18, which was driven by unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions in major producing regions, along with a weak dollar. Energy: Overweight. The IPO of Saudi Aramco apparently will be delayed into 2019, according to various press reports. New York, London and Hong Kong remain in contention for the foreign listing of KSA's national oil company. Base Metals: Neutral. China's iron ore and copper imports in January - February 2018 were up 5.4% and 9.8% y/y, respectively. China's year-to-date (ytd) steel product exports are down 27.1% y/y, while ytd aluminum exports are up 25.8% y/y. The aluminum data are consistent with our assessment that the global aluminum deficit will likely ease this year.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Weather and transport disruptions boosted global ag markets in 1Q18. However, this outperformance is under threat as global trade tensions build (see below). Feature Chart of the WeekAgs Are Off To A Good Start Weather concerns in highly productive regions of South America as well as the U.S. have supported ag prices since the beginning of the year (Chart of the Week). Corn and wheat bottomed in mid-December, and have since gained 14.8% and 25.4%, respectively, while soybeans bottomed mid-January and have since gained 10.6%. This pushed the Grains and Oilseed CCI up 12.6% since the beginning of the year. Drought ... And Flooding In The U.S. Erratic weather in the U.S. could affect yields. The chief areas of concern are the U.S. mid-South and lower Midwest, which have recently experienced flooding, and are raising fears of lower yields of winter wheat. At the same time, the area from Southwestern Kansas to Northern Texas experienced unusually dry weather, causing winter grains to suffer. On top of that, high water levels in the Ohio River also led to shipping disruptions. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not lower its 2017/18 estimates of U.S. wheat yields in its latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), yield estimates stand significantly lower than those of the last crop year (Chart 2). In addition, American wheat farmers are expected to harvest the smallest area recorded in the history of the series, which dates back to the 1960/61 crop year. U.S. wheat production is expected to be the lowest since 2002/03 - a 25% year-on-year (y/y) drop in output. As a result, the U.S. supply surplus will likely be the smallest since 2002, weighing on U.S. exports. The U.S. generally accounts for only ~8% of global wheat production, and increases elsewhere, primarily in Russia and India, are expected to more than offset the fall in U.S. output. Despite the poor conditions in the U.S., global supply is expected to continue growing this year with the wheat market in surplus and inventories swelling to record levels (Chart 3). Chart 2Depressed Yield, Record Low Acreage In U.S. Chart 3World Remains Well Supplied Drought In Argentina Supporting Soybean, And To A Lesser Extent Corn Prices In addition to the unfavorable North American weather, warm and dry weather in Argentina have resulted in a fall in estimated yields of Argentine corn and soybeans.2 Argentina accounts for 14% and 3% of global soybean and corn production, respectively. The USDA cut back its estimate of Argentine soybean production by 13% in the latest WASDE, causing a downward revision of ~4 mm MT in global inventories (Chart 4). Although Argentina's estimated corn output was also reduced, the resulting decline in its exports is expected to be picked up by U.S. exports. American farmers thus are benefitting from the unfavorable weather in Argentina. As is the case with soybeans, the net effect on corn is a 4 mm MT downwards revision to global inventories. In addition, grain exports from Argentina's main agro-export hub of Rosario were stalled last month due to a truckers' strike. While the strike has now eased, it led to transportation bottlenecks and contributed to limited global supply earlier this year. Back in the U.S., the Trump administration's lack of clarity regarding where it stands on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates refiners blend biofuels like corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuels, is worrying farmers. While the energy industry is unsatisfied with the current policy, claiming that the RFS is unfair and costly, it gives a lifeline to corn farmers with excess stock. Bottom Line: Unfavorable weather and transportation disruptions, primarily in the U.S. and Argentina, have been bullish for ags since the beginning of the year. Lower production is expected to push both soybeans and corn to deficits in 2017/18 (Chart 5). The longevity of the impact of these forces hinges on whether the weather will improve between now and harvest, causing yields to come in better-than-expected. Chart 4Weather Weighs On Soybean And Corn Yields Chart 5Corn And Soybeans In Deficit This Year "We Can Also Do Stupid"3 In addition to the impact of his domestic immigration policy on the availability of farm workers, President Trump's controversial trade policies are threatening to spill into ags.4 In direct response to the 25% and 10% tariff Trump slapped on steel and aluminum imports, several of America's key ag trading partners have already reacted by communicating the possibility of imposing similar tariffs on their imports of American goods - chiefly agricultural goods. Among the commodities rumored to be at risk are Chinese soybean, sorghum and cotton imports, and EU agriculture imports including corn and rice imports. While President Trump's stated aim is to make America great again by reviving industries hurt by cheap imports and unfair trade, his strategy is proving risky as many of the trade partners he is threatening to rock ties with are in fact major consumers of U.S. agricultural products (Chart 6). In fact, the top three importers of U.S. ag products - collectively accounting for 42%, or $58.7 billion worth of U.S. ag exports in 2017 - are Canada, China, and Mexico (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 6Risky Strategy, Mr. President Chart 7ASoybeans Appear To Be At Risk... Chart 7B... As Is Cotton However, when it comes to the bulk commodities we cover, China is by far the U.S. ag industry's biggest customer - importing more than 30% of all U.S. exports, equivalent to $14.9 billion. Thus, China appears to have significant leverage in the case of a trade war, and U.S. farmers are worried of the impact from trade disputes. China has already indicated that it is investigating import restrictions on sorghum. Chinese trade restrictions - if implemented - will have a significant impact on U.S. sorghum farmers. In value terms, sorghum exports contributed less than 1% to U.S. agricultural product exports last year, but exports to China made up more than 80% of all U.S. sorghum exports. Sino-American Trade Dispute Would Hurt U.S. Ags...But Not As Much As Is Feared Chart 8Relatively Low Soybean Inventories The biggest fear among U.S. farmers is not the loss of sorghum exports, but that China will impose restrictions on its imports of U.S. soybeans. Soybeans are the U.S.'s largest ag export - contributing 16% to the value of all agricultural product exports. Nearly 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and more than a third of U.S. soybeans, end up in China. Thus it may appear that China has some leverage there. In fact, Brazil, which is already China's top soybean supplier, has already communicated that it would be willing to supply China with more soybeans. However, China's ability to find alternative suppliers is questionable. While China imported ~32 mm MT of soybeans from the U.S. last year, Brazil's total soybean inventories stand at ~22 mm MT. Brazil simply does not have enough excess supply to cover all of China's needs. In fact, global soybean inventories are ~95 mm MT - only three times the amount of China's annual imports from the U.S. On top of that, although China generally tries to shield itself from supply shocks by building large inventories, its soybean inventories - measured as stocks-to-use - are significantly lower than that of other ags (Chart 8). In fact, Beijing has already tightened its scrutiny on U.S. soybeans, announcing at the beginning of the year that it would no longer accept shipments with more than 1% of foreign material. Half of last year's shipments reportedly would have failed this criterion, and the net effect of this new policy is higher costs for U.S. farmers. Cotton is another agricultural commodity that China has indicated may be caught up in a trade dispute. 16% of U.S. cotton exports went to China last year, but although the U.S. is the dominant global cotton exporter, its value accounts for less than 5% of total U.S. agricultural products exports. Given that China's inventories are extremely high - enough to cover a year's worth of consumption - and that Chinese imports from the U.S. are equivalent to ~3% of global inventories, there is significant opportunity for China to diversify its imports and find an alternative supplier to the U.S. Bottom Line: Although China would be better able to implement restrictions on cotton imports from the U.S. compared to soybeans, the impact on U.S. farmers would be less painful given that they are not as dependent on China as U.S. soybean farmers are. U.S. Ags Dominate Exports, But Substitutes Abound The U.S. is the world's top exporter of corn and cotton, and the second largest exporter of wheat and soybeans. While it remains a dominant player in global export markets, its share of global agriculture exports has been declining sharply over time (Chart 9). While in levels, the general trend for U.S. agriculture exports - with the exception of wheat - appears to be upward, the share of U.S. exports as a percentage of global exports has actually been falling. Compared to the year 2000, the global share of U.S. corn and wheat exports has almost halved, going from 64% to 36%, and 29% to 14%, respectively. In the soybean market, U.S. soybean exports now account for 37% of exports, down from half of global trade. Lastly, U.S. rice exports now account for 7% of global exports, a fall from 11% in 2000. Unlike most other ag commodities, U.S. cotton has captured a larger share of the global market - currently at almost 50%, from 26% in 2000. Russian, Canadian, and European wheat farmers have been tough competitors. This crop year, Russia is expected to surpass the U.S. as the top wheat exporter for the first time (Chart 10). In addition, while the U.S. was the dominant wheat exporter just 10 years ago, more recently, Canada and the EU have on some occasions exported more wheat than the U.S. Chart 9U.S. Exports Relatively Less Attractive Chart 10U.S. Exports Face Growing Competition In the case of soybeans, Brazilian exports have grown significantly since 2010, consistently exporting more than the U.S. since 2012. Brazilian corn exports are also catching up to the U.S., as are Argentine corn exports which have been growing steadily. If these trade disputes prove to be an ongoing trend, we see two potential scenarios panning out: U.S. farmers could move away from farming crops most impacted by trade restrictions, and instead increase the farmland allocated to crops that are consumed domestically, and thus insulated from the Trump administration's trade policy decisions. In this scenario, the longer term impact would be an increase in the supply of locally consumed ags and a decrease in the U.S. supply of exportable ags. Global ag trade flows could shift, such that U.S. allies begin importing more of their ag products from the U.S., while countries that are in trade disputes with the U.S. switch to other ag suppliers. NAFTA Is Still At Risk The ongoing re-negotiation of NAFTA ultimately could lead to an abrogation of the treaty. Should this evolve with no superseding bilateral trade agreements, it would mark a significant blow to the U.S. agricultural industry. Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports after China, accounting for 13% of all U.S. exports of agricultural bulks, while Canada makes up a much smaller 2% share. Nearly 30% of U.S. corn exports and 23% of U.S. rice exports end up in Mexico. As a result, these two bulks are especially vulnerable in the event of a treaty abrogation. Wheat, cotton and soybeans - Mexico accounts for 14%, 7%, and 7% of these exports, respectively - would also be impacted by a trade dispute. In the interest of diversifying its sources of ag imports, Mexico has already started exploring other suppliers from South America. Its corn imports from Brazil are reported to have increased 10-fold last year. Furthermore, government officials and grain buyers have been visiting Brazil and Argentina to investigate other ag suppliers for Mexico. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service assign a 50/50 probability to a breakdown in the NAFTA negotiations. In the event of a NAFTA abrogation, they assign a 25% chance of a failure to strike bilateral agreements - resulting in a conditional probability of only 12.5%. Bottom Line: The shrinking role of the U.S. as a global ag supplier at a time when global storage facilities are well-stocked will - in most cases - allow its global consumers to diversify away from U.S. exports. In the case of soybeans, however, this is less certain. A Weaker USD Also Helped Buoy Ag Prices In 1Q18 Chart 11A Stronger Dollar Would Weigh On Ags A weaker dollar has been supportive of commodities prices so far this year (Chart 11). The recent bout of U.S. import restrictions has investors expecting the USD to further weaken on the back of a trade war. However, our FX Strategists believe the current set of tariffs will have a muted effect on the dollar.5 In fact, given that the U.S. economy is currently at full employment, and their expectation that the Fed will be proactive, tariffs will likely generate inflationary pressures, causing the tighter monetary policy, which does not support further weakening of the USD. Bottom Line: A pick-up in the dollar along with an escalation in trade disputes or the scrapping of NAFTA would be bearish for ags. For now, bullish weather forecasts prevail, and are keeping prices well supported. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," dated March 1, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Soybean and corn plantings are reported to be half their typical height. Please see "Argentina Drought Bakes Crops Sparks Grain Price Rally," available at reuters.com. 3 As expressed by EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's about the potential tit-for-tat retaliatory measures in response to steel and aluminum import tariffs. 4 According to Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, and former deputy agriculture secretary during the George W. Bush administration, roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants work on U.S. farms each year, or roughly about 60% of the agriculture labor force. 5 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For the Dollar?," dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Underweight Declining share of the consumer's wallet has been the narrative for media stocks for several years (top panel). Millennials, currently the largest U.S. age cohort, have been "cord cutting" and preferring competitive "on demand" services, largely explaining the near collapse in media spending. As a result, industry pricing power is under attack with relative sales and profit expectations steadily sinking (second and third panels). These bleak spending patterns are not isolated in the S&P movies and entertainment index, they have also infiltrated the S&P cable & satellite media sub-index. Even extremely resilient cable TV pricing power is losing its luster on the back of shrinking industry demand, as cable price hikes can no longer keep up with overall inflation (bottom panel). Given the high capital intensity of these firms, tightening margins will eventually translate into cash flow compression. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P movies & entertainment and S&P cable and satellite indexes to underweight and see this week's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P movies & entertainment and S&P cable and satellite indexes, are BLBG: S5MOVI - DIS, TWX, FOXA, FOX, VIAB and BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH, respectively.

Highlights The protectionist option in U.S. policy is here to stay; President Trump is likely to impose punitive measures on China before the U.S. midterm elections; The U.S. Section 301 investigation into China's intellectual property theft is about national security more than trade; China's NPC session suggests the Communist Party is downshifting growth rates; The North Korean diplomatic breakthrough is real ... stay focused on U.S.-China tensions. Feature "I won't rule out direct talks with Kim Jong Un. I just won't ... As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that's his problem, not mine." - U.S. President Donald J. Trump, March 4, 2018 Two of our key 2018 views came to the fore over the past two weeks. First, U.S. President Donald Trump took protectionist action that rattled the markets.1 Second, North Korean diplomacy surprised to the upside, with Trump accepting an invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un by this May.2 The nuclear program is allegedly up for discussion. Markets recovered quickly from Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, with the VIX falling and American and global equities continuing to rally (Chart 1). Trump's formal tariff proclamation was not as disruptive as some had feared. He provided exemptions for entire countries - rather than merely companies - based on an appeals process that will include economic as well as geopolitical criteria. But while he struck an optimistic note on NAFTA (on which Canada's and Mexico's exemptions will depend), he struck a pessimistic note on trade talks with China. Chart 1Markets Shrugged Off Protectionism China is quickly becoming the foremost political and geopolitical risk of the year, as we discuss in this report. First, diplomacy with North Korea will not remove the risk of serious U.S. protectionism toward China.3 Second, China's domestic reforms are proceeding, posing downside risks to Chinese imports and hence global growth. We conclude with a brief word on why investors should take the North Korean diplomacy as a hugely positive development. There may be some volatile episodes during the upcoming negotiations, but U.S.-China relations are the real risk and North Korea remains largely a derivative of the emerging "Warm War" between the two global behemoths. "Death By China" In the past few weeks, the Trump administration has moved swiftly to begin implementing its protectionist platform.4 Trump's formal announcement of global tariffs on steel and wrought and unwrought aluminum products marked the shift, although investors got a foreshadowing with the January announcement of washing machine and solar panel tariffs. The latest tariffs are insignificant in macroeconomic terms. They will affect less than 0.3% of global exports and less than 2% of U.S. imports.5 The market has thus far cheered the limited scope of the tariffs and the numerous exemptions that will surely follow. But the danger is that investors are underestimating the political shifts that underpin Trump's move. In fact, there is little reason to think that protectionism will fade when Trump leaves office: Americans are susceptible to it, according to opinion polling (Chart 2). Now that the seal has been broken - and that by a president who hails from the "pro-free trade" Republican Party - the danger is what happens when the next recession occurs. Politicians of all stripes will be more likely to propose protectionist solutions. The long trend of decline in U.S. tariffs since the 1930s may gradually begin to reverse (Chart 3), confirming our key decade theme that globalization has reached its apex. Chart 2Americans Not Immune To Protectionism Chart 3U.S. Tariffs: Nowhere To Go But Up! How far will the protectionist threat go in the short term? Investors should focus on two bellwethers. First, the outcome of NAFTA re-negotiations.6 Second, a decision by the Trump administration on how to respond to the U.S. Trade Representative Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 investigation into China's practices on technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, discussed below. China is an industrial powerhouse that is becoming more technologically adept, which threatens the core advantage of the United States in what could soon become a "Warm War" between the two global hegemons. Trump was elected on a pledge to get aggressive on China and is relatively unconstrained on trade policy (Table 1). U.S.-China economic interdependency has declined, reducing the two countries' ability to manage tensions.7 Table 1Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues Moreover, Trump is relatively unpopular - which jeopardizes the GOP Congress in November - and he will need to take actions to remain relevant ahead of the November 6 midterm elections (Chart 4). The U.S. and China are currently bickering about the size of the trade imbalance (Chart 5), not to mention the causes and solutions. What will the U.S. demand? This was the question of Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, Politburo member Liu He, when he visited Washington D.C. on March 1-3 for emergency meetings with the U.S. administration. He was rebuffed with the announcement on tariffs. Washington has been arguing that high-level dialogues with China - that investors cheered after the Mar-a-Lago Summit - have failed and that punitive measures will go forward unless China makes quick and concrete improvements to the trade balance, starting with $100 billion worth of new imports.8 Chart 4Trump's Low Approval Jeopardizes Control Of Congress In November Chart 5U.S.-China: Disagreeing Even On The Facts In response, Liu has promised that China will redouble its economic "reform and opening up" process and has asked the United States for an official list of demands. Our sense is that there are broadly two types of demands: Cyclical demands: Beijing often does one-off purchases of big-ticket items to ally Washington's ire over trade. This time, it would have the added benefit for Trump of coming right ahead of the midterm election. Trump's request on March 8 for an immediate $100 billion reduction in the trade deficit could fall in this category. Structural demands: If Trump seeks to be a game changer in the U.S.-China relationship, then he will demand accelerated structural reforms: for instance, a lasting decrease in the deficit due to a permanent opening of market access. He could also begin pushing a "mirror tax" on trade (reciprocal tariffs) so as to reduce the gap between the U.S. and China, which is less justifiable now that China is an economic juggernaut (Chart 6). Trump could also demand action on several long-standing U.S. requests: Chart 6Not All That Much Daylight On U.S.-China Tariff Rates Opening foreign investment access to a broad range of sectors (beyond finance), such as transportation, logistics, information technology, or even telecommunications; The right to operate wholly U.S.-owned companies in China; An open capital account and truly free-floating currency; Subsidy cuts for state-owned enterprises (SOEs); Full digital access for U.S. tech companies; An improved arbitration system for legal disputes. Since rapidly implementing many of these demands could threaten China's stability or even undermine the Communist Party, Trump may have to use the threat of sweeping tariffs to try to force them through. The current news flow suggests that Trump is favoring cyclical solutions. At the same time, we expect China to make at least some significant structural compromises: China does not want a trade war. China is more exposed to the U.S. than the U.S. is to China (Chart 7). Moreover, China's political system is rigid and opposed to mass unemployment. The last time China allowed mass layoffs was in 1999, and even then the state controlled the process. A trade war, by contrast, would threaten 223 million manufacturing employees with uncontrolled job losses. The central government is focused on stability; while it will insist on "saving face" internationally through tit-for-tat measures, it will go to great lengths to avoid a negative spiral. This will require compromises. China wants structural reform. Xi Jinping is rebooting a reform agenda that requires transitioning away from old industries. These reforms are long overdue and Xi can parlay many of them to pacify Trump. For instance, China has improved the market-orientation of the renminbi, causing Trump to cease his complaints about currency manipulation (Chart 8). China currently claims it is about to increase imports and open its financial sector further to foreign investment. Chart 7China More Exposed To U.S., But Not By Much Chart 8China: Structural Reform As Trade Concession The jury is still out on the deepest structural issues. We expect Xi's latest reform push to surprise to the upside, but it is not clear how far he will go. For instance, while Beijing might begin to ease capital controls imposed in 2016, it would be a shock if it agreed to rapidly liberalize the capital account. The same goes for granting extensive access to strategic sectors, downgrading state support for SOEs, or moderating cyber controls that punish U.S. companies. Any promises of gradual progress on these issues will likely be seen by the U.S. as no different from past promises to past presidents. Hence everything depends on whether Trump will be satisfied by token Beijing actions that look good ahead of the midterms. It is ominous that China has already drastically cut steel and aluminum overcapacity, and yet Trump imposed tariffs anyway. This kind of delayed retribution could become a pattern. Bottom Line: China has the means to prevent a trade war through significant compromises that Trump can advertise as "wins" to his domestic audience this November. If Trump accepts these concessions, the risk of trade war will effectively be removed until the next major electoral test in 2020. However, Trump lacks constitutional and legal constraints on the use of tariffs, which means that he can override China's offers and instigate a trade war anyway. This risk has a fair probability, given midterm politics and the fact that overall U.S.-China interdependency, the key economic constraint to conflict, has eroded over the past decade. A Bellwether: The Intellectual Property Investigation The immediate bellwether for the Trump administration's appetite for trade war will be Trump's handling of the Section 301 investigation on technology transfer, intellectual property (IP), and innovation. A ruling is due no later than August 18, but reports indicate action could come quickly.9 Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 is the prime law by which the U.S. seeks to enforce trade agreements, resolve disputes, and open markets. Under this law, the U.S. executive - i.e. the president - can impose trade sanctions against countries deemed to be violating trade agreements or engaging in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. The law is specific in addressing intellectual property violations and closed market access, and yet broad in giving the executive leeway to interpret "unjustifiable" practices and mete out punishment. It does, however, require negotiations with the foreign trading partner to remedy the situation before the U.S. imposes duties or other remedies. We expect the U.S. to draw a hard line. A close look reveals that this Section 301 probe is primarily addressing strategic problems, not trade problems. To be fair, the U.S.'s trade grievances have merit. Clearly there is room for China to improve the IP trade balance. The ratio of IP receipts versus IP payments shows that the U.S. is a world-leader, while China is an extreme IP laggard, as one would expect (Chart 9). And yet the U.S. barely runs a trade surplus with China in IP, and far less of a surplus than with Taiwan and Korea, which are more advanced than China and thus ought to be more competitive with the U.S. than China (Chart 10). The U.S. appears particularly disadvantaged in the Chinese market when it comes to computer software and trademarks (Chart 11), judging by its IP exports to similar Asian partners. Chart 9China Is An Innovation Laggard... Chart 10... Yet Its IP Deficit With U.S. Is Small Also, in many cases Chinese companies have gained a dominant share of new markets, like e-commerce, where the U.S. would have a larger share if it had been allowed to compete fairly in the nascent stages. The U.S. wants to prevent this from happening again. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices, and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners (Chart 12). China will have to compromise on this program to stave off tariffs. Chart 11China Skirting Fees On U.S. Software? Chart 12China's High-Tech Protectionism Nevertheless, China is a large and growing market for U.S. high-tech goods, intellectual property, and services exports (Chart 13). A comparison with Taiwan and South Korea suggests that China could open up greater access to these U.S. exports (Chart 14). The truth is that, unlike with staunch ally Japan, the U.S. harbors deep misgivings about China's strategic intentions. This is why it limits high-tech exports to China - which, as Beijing often points out, creates an abnormal imbalance in this column of the trade book (Chart 15). Chart 13U.S. Tech And IP Exports To China Growing Chart 14China Could Give U.S. More Market Share Chart 15U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Thus while the trade concerns above are not to be scoffed at, the Section 301 probe is clearly about U.S. security. The main practices under investigation are: Forced technology transfer by means of joint-venture (JV) requirements, ownership caps, government procurement, and administrative or regulatory interventions; Unfair licensing and contracting pricing, and abuses of proprietary technology; State-backed investment and/or acquisitions in the U.S. to acquire cutting-edge tech and IP; Cyber-espionage and intrusion to acquire tech and IP. Only one of these is about market pricing. The others speak to the U.S. belief that the Communist Party has orchestrated a "techno-nationalist" agenda that combines aggressive and illegal acquisitions with domestic protectionism. In particular, Chinese companies have made strategic acquisitions in the U.S. through shell companies with state funds or state guidance to access critical technologies and IP, while forcing American companies operating in China to transfer over the same as a precondition to operate there.10 Washington fears that if Beijing' strategy continues unabated, high-tech Chinese companies will be able to gain the best western technology, grow uninhibited in the massive domestic market with state financial support, and then launch competitive operations on a global scale. Moreover, the lack of division between China's ruling party, state apparatus, and corporate sector means that technologies acquired by Chinese companies can be directly appropriated by the country's military and intelligence apparatus to the detriment of the strategic balance with the U.S. How will the U.S. retaliate? We are unsure, and therein lies the risk for the market.11 Trump has floated the idea of levying a large "fine" or indemnity on China for past IP violations. The U.S. believes that IP theft amounts to a "second trade deficit" with China, with estimates of annual losses ranging from $200 billion to nearly $600 billion.12 U.S. remedies will become clearer when the USTR offers its recommendations. Bottom Line: The Section 301 probe is not about the trade deficit alone. It is about the growing tension between U.S. and China in a broader strategic context. We would expect the USTR to propose trade remedies that are more significant than the recent steel and aluminum tariffs. And we would expect Trump to impose some punitive measures. This is a source of near-term risk to markets, as the U.S. and China are less likely to manage their disputes smoothly than in the past. We are short China-exposed U.S. stocks relative to their domestic-oriented peers. China's NPC Session: On Track For Downside Risk Surprises Chart 16Downward Revisions In Chinese Growth China's NPC session is not yet over but some preliminary takeaways are in order. The headlines focused on Xi Jinping's power grab, but for us the real relevance was economic policy. Signs of economic policy tightening are not as hawkish as we expected, but the bias remains in favor of slower growth and tighter monetary, fiscal, and financial policy. The 6.5% GDP growth target was not a surprise. China has various economic targets to meet in 2020 under existing economic plans; only after that does it say it will scrap GDP targets altogether. The GDP target is a fabrication but the point is that the direction is down. Local government GDP targets suggest downward revision as well (Chart 16). To put a point on it, there is no evidence that China's cyclical slowdown is on the cusp of reversing (Table 2).13 Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy In this context, it is notable that the government got rid of official targets for monetary growth (M2). This confirms the view of our colleagues at BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy that China has been targeting interest rates instead of the quantity of money since 2015 (Chart 17).14 This means that M2 growth can rise or fall as high or as low as necessary to meet the PBoC's interest rate targets. The takeaway for now is that M2 growth can go lower than the recent 8%-9% range in which it has been moving, since the current policy is to "control" money growth and avoid systemic risk. The new leadership at the People's Bank of China will have a challenge to establish its credibility, which means that accommodative compromises may not come as quickly as some expect. Chart 17A New Monetary Policy Regime On the fiscal front, China implied some tightening by lowering its official budget deficit target to 2.6%. Past reports show that China always meets its budget deficit targets perfectly (Chart 18), suggesting that the target is either meaningless or Beijing has a steely discipline unseen in the rest of the world. The IMF publishes an augmented budget deficit which, at 12% of GDP, gives a better indication of why authorities want to maintain control, if not outright tighten the reins (Chart 19).15 The Finance Ministry rushed to dampen speculation that this budget deficit reduction would amount to austerity. Approximately 550 billion yuan of additional "special purpose bonds" - issued by local governments to finance infrastructure projects - will be issued in 2018. This could amount to new spending worth 2% of last year's total spending, i.e. not a negligible sum. The purpose may be to smooth over the conclusion of the local government debt swap program that began in 2014. The debt swap program was a "game changer" by allowing local governments to exchange high-interest or short-term debt for low-interest, long-term, government-backed debt. Now Beijing is winding down the program and telling local governments that new bond issuance will not have the implicit guarantee of the central government, and will face higher interest rates. Chart 18China's Budget Deficit Target Is Meaningless Chart 19China's Real Budget Deficit Is Large Similarly, Beijing has been attempting to provide formal banks more freedom to lend to offset its crackdown on shadow banks. Pursuant to this goal, it announced that required provisions for non-performing loans (NPLs) will be reduced from 150% of NPLs to 120%. Banks are already holding excess provisions, and provisions have been trending upwards. Meanwhile China's official NPL count is unbelievably low, warranting higher provisions. So it is not clear to what extent banks will lend more as a result of lower requirements. January and February credit numbers imply that credit policy remains tight even aside from the wind-down of the local government debt swap (Chart 20). The dust has not yet settled on the NPC session and we will soon examine some of the other policy announcements, like tax cuts for small businesses and infrastructure spending reductions. However, the implication so far is that the Communist Party wants to keep the fiscal deficit and total social financing flat this year. If this policy were executed faithfully, the fiscal and credit impulse would be zero this year. Simultaneously, new data revealed that, in keeping with the reform reboot, the Xi administration is allowing creative destruction to improve efficiency in the corporate sector. Bankruptcies rocketed upward in 2017 and this trend should continue (Chart 21). This is a notable development given the widespread perception that China does not know how to deal with social consequences of structural reforms. It suggests that policymakers have a higher threshold for economic pain. Chart 20Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart 21Creative Destruction Is Rising Finally, the new anti-corruption super-ministry, the National Supervisory Commission, has now received legislative clearance. It is still unclear how the new body will operate in practice. We maintain that on the margin it should be negative for economic growth due to the micro-level impact of corruption probes on local government officials and local state enterprises. Notably, some of the provinces whose GDP-weighted economic growth targets were the most aggressively revised downwards (Tianjin, Chongqing, Inner Mongolia) are also provinces that have been hit heavily with anti-corruption probes, accusations of falsifying data, and canceled infrastructure projects over the past year. The anti-corruption campaign is a tool for enforcing central party dictates more effectively, and at present those dictates call for minimizing systemic financial risk, including misallocation of capital by local authorities (Chart 22). Chart 22Anti-Corruption Campaign Encourages Downward GDP Revisions? Bottom Line: Policy settings in China will continue to constrain growth this year. Now that the policy shift toward accelerated reform is more evident, the downside risks of that move will become apparent. We are closing our long China H-shares versus EM trade for a gain of 3%. North Korea: This Time Is Different A brief concluding word on North Korea. While we did not expect that Trump and Kim would arrange to meet so soon, we are not surprised by the fact that the diplomatic track is moving forward. As we wrote in January, Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, forcing China to implement sanctions, which subsequently caused North Korea to stop testing missiles. Trump effectively called Kim Jong Un's bluff, daring him to go beyond missile and nuclear device tests. Instead of ratcheting up tensions, Kim declared victory on the nuclear deterrent and proclaimed the end of the crisis. This is the "Arc of Diplomacy" about which we have written (Chart 23).16 We reject the view in the media that Trump's policy has been erratic and that China is getting left on the sidelines of a Trump-Kim meet-up. China has cut off exports to North Korea (Chart 24), which in turn has cut off the regime's access to hard currency. Because of China, Kim literally cannot afford not to negotiate. Chart 23Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran Chart 24China Gives Kim To Trump For the same reason, Kim is not likely to be bluffing or stalling: with limited conventional military capabilities, Kim cannot dial up and dial down the level of tensions at will. If he provokes the U.S. anew, he risks provoking a war that would destroy his regime. Moreover, from the moment he came to power, Supreme Leader Kim established a desire to elevate the importance of economic reforms within state policy, which is impossible without dealing with China and the U.S. to create a favorable international setting. From the U.S. side, Trump has likely notched up a major national security victory that will enhance his credibility in the 2018 midterms and especially 2020 elections. A clear risk to our view that Trump will take protectionist action toward China this year is that he will need China's continued cooperation, as it could relax sanctions enforcement. However, the strategic significance of the Section 301 investigation means that Trump cannot afford to sacrifice his trade agenda so soon. While bad news from North Korea seldom has a substantial impact on markets, our South Korean curve steepener benefited. So far it has returned 2.9%. The JPY/EUR has fallen back from a strong February rally, but we remain long. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, and Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 In September we highlighted that the North Korean threat cycle had peaked. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, and Special Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Apprentice-style personnel reshuffle that has seen Peter Navarro, director of the National Trade Council, elevated above the departed Gary Cohn, has signaled the return of the protectionist agenda. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A," dated March 9, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Not $1 billion, as Trump erroneously tweeted! 9 One year after the date of initiation is likely August 18, the date used in the USTR's description in the Federal Register, although President Trump signed off on August 14 which could mark an earlier deadline. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Adam Behsudi, "Trump Eyes Another Trade Crackdown," Politico, March 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. Note that according to the text of the law, by late May, the U.S. Trade Representative could report that China is making sufficient progress and further action unnecessary (but this is unlikely). The recent handling of the Section 232 investigation into steel and aluminum suggests that punitive measures will be foreshadowed by public statements from U.S. officials. 10 For detailed assessments, please see USTR, "2017 Special 301 Report," which puts China at the top of the priority watch list; USTR, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018; U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, "2017 Report To Congress," November 2017. 11 As a frame of reference, in the dispute over U.S. beef exports to the EU, a prominent Section 301 case, the U.S. imposed 100% ad valorem tariffs on 34 products from the EU in 1999 until 2009. However, Trump's actions are likely to go well beyond this due to the strategic nature of the dispute. Not only can he impose tariffs on 100 or more specific goods - since Chinese IP violations run the gamut - but also he can impose restrictions on Chinese investment through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), which is tightening scrutiny on China in general. 12 The $600 billion "high water mark" estimate comes from the former Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and former director of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander. They also emphasize that the U.S. has additional retaliatory options (outside of the 1974 trade law) under the Economic Espionage Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Please see "China's Intellectual Property Theft Must Stop," The New York Times, August 15, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China And The Risk Of Escalation," dated March 7, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 At the same time, the government issued guidelines suggesting that scrutiny of local government budgets, and specifically expenditures, will get stricter. The cancellation of subway/metro projects is already a trend that is well underway, but other inefficient projects and capital misallocation could be targeted next. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Bond Strategy: The investment backdrop is broadly evolving the way that we forecasted in our 2018 Outlook, thus we continue to maintain our core strategic recommendations. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and overweight global corporate debt versus government bonds (focused on the U.S.). Look to reverse that positioning sometime during the latter half of 2018 after global inflation increases and central banks tighten policy more aggressively. Japan Corporates: Japanese companies are in excellent financial shape, according to our new Japan Corporate Health Monitor. Although softening Japanese growth and a firming yen may prevent an outperformance of Japanese corporate debt in the coming months. Feature "I love it when a plan comes together." - Hannibal Smith, Leader of The A-Team Many investors likely came down with serious case of a sore neck last week, given the head-turning headlines that came out: Chart 1A Pause In The 'Inflation Scare' U.S. President Donald Trump announcing a blanket tariff on metals imports, then exempting some important countries (Canada, Mexico, Australia) only days later. Trump agreeing to an unprecedented meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on the nuclear issue, only to have the White House press secretary later announce that no meeting would take place without North Korean "concessions". The European Central Bank (ECB) hawkishly altering its forward guidance to markets at the March monetary policy meeting, but then having that immediately followed by dovish comments from ECB President Mario Draghi. The strong headline number on the February U.S. employment report blowing away expectations, but the soft readings on wages suggesting that the Fed will not have to move more aggressively on rate hikes. For bond markets in particular, the ECB announcement and the U.S. Payrolls report were most important. Investors had been growing worried about a more hawkish monetary policy shift in Europe or the U.S. This was especially true in the U.S. after the previous set of employment data was released in early February showing a pickup in wage inflation that could force the Fed to shift to a more hawkish stance. That created a spike in Treasury yields and the VIX and a full-blown equity market correction. Since then, inflation expectations have eased a bit and market pricing of future Fed and ECB moves has stabilized, helping to bring down volatility and supporting some recovery in global equity markets (Chart 1). With all of these "tape bombs" hitting the news wires, investors can be forgiven for re-thinking their medium-term investment strategy in light of the changing events. We think it is more productive to check if the initial expectations on which that strategy was based still make sense. On that note, the developments seen so far this year fit right in with the key themes we outlined in our 2018 Outlook, which we will review in this Weekly Report. The Critical Points From Our Outlook Still Hold Up In a pair of reports published last December, we translated BCA's overall 2018 Outlook into broad investment themes (and strategic implications) for global fixed income markets. We repeat those themes below, with our updated assessment on where we currently stand. Theme #1: A more bearish backdrop for bonds, led by the U.S.: Faster global growth, with rebounding inflation expectations, will trigger tighter overall global monetary policy. This will be led by Fed rate hikes and, later in 2018, ECB tapering. Global bond yields will rise in response, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED, BUT WATCH INFLATION EXPECTATIONS. Economic growth is still broadly expanding at a solid pace, as evidenced by the elevated levels of the OECD leading economic indicator and our global manufacturing PMI (Chart 2). The U.S. is clearly exhibiting the strongest growth momentum looking at the individual country PMIs (bottom panel), while there is a more mixed picture in the most recent readings in other countries and regions. Importantly, all of the manufacturing PMIs remain well above the 50 line indicating expanding economic activity. Last week's U.S. Payrolls report for February showed that great American job creation machine can still produce outsized employment gains with only moderate wage inflation pressures, even in an economy that appears to be at "full employment". The +313k increase in jobs, which included upward revisions to both of the previous two months of a combined +54k, generated no change in the U.S. unemployment rate which stayed unchanged at 4.1% with the labor force participation rate increasing modestly (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Growth Leading The Way Chart 3The Fed Can Still Hike Rates Only 'Gradually' The wage data was perhaps the most important part of the report, given that the spike in global market volatility seen last month came on the heels of an upside surprise in U.S. average hourly earnings (AHE) for January. There was no follow through of that acceleration in February, with the year-over-year growth rate of AHE slowing back to 2.6% from 2.9%, reversing the previous month's increase (middle panel). The immediate implication is that the Fed does not have to start raising rates faster or by more than planned. That pullback in U.S. wage growth, combined with the continued sluggishness of inflation in the other developed economies and the sideways price action seen in global oil markets, does suggest that inflation expectations may struggle to be the main driver of higher global bond yields in the near term. Overall nominal bond yields are unlikely to decline, however, as real yields are slowly rising in response to faster global growth and markets pricing in tighter monetary policy in response (Chart 4). Chart 4Real Yields Rising Now,##BR##Inflation Expectations Will Rise Again Later We have not seen enough evidence to cause us to change our view on inflation expectations moving higher over the course of 2018, particularly with BCA's commodity strategists now expecting oil prices to trade between $70-$80/bbl in the latter half of 2018.1 One final point: it is far too soon to determine if the protectionist trade leanings of President Trump will alter the current trajectory of global growth and interest rates. The implication is that investors should not change their overall planned investment strategy for this year at this juncture. Theme #2: Growth & policy divergences will create cross-market bond investment opportunities: Global growth in 2018 will become less synchronized compared to 2016 & 2017, as will individual country monetary policies. Government bonds in the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes will happen, will underperform, while bonds in the U.K. and Australia, where rates will likely be held steady, will outperform. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED. As shown in Chart 2, the big coordinated upward move in global growth seen in 2017 is already starting to become less synchronized in 2018. Recent readings on euro area growth have softened a bit while, more worryingly, a growing list of Japanese data is slowing. U.K. data remains mixed, while the Canadian economy is showing few signs of cooling off. China's growth remains critical for so many countries, including Australia, but so far the Chinese data is showing only some moderation off of last year's pace. Net-net, the data seen so far this year is playing out according to our 2018 Themes - better in the U.S. and Canada, softer in the U.K. and Australia. We are sticking to our view that the rate hikes currently discounted by markets in the U.S. and Canada will be delivered, but that there will be little-to-no monetary tightening in the U.K. and Australia (Chart 5). Theme #3: The most dovish central banks will be forced to turn less dovish: The ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) will both slow the pace of their asset purchases in 2018, in response to strong domestic economies and rising inflation. This will lead to bear-steepening of yield curves in Europe, mostly in the latter half of 2018. The BoJ could raise its target on JGB yields, but only modestly, in response to an overall higher level of global bond yields. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED, ALTHOUGH WE NOW EXPECT NO BoJ MOVE TO TAKE PLACE THIS YEAR. Both central banks have already dialed back to pace of the asset purchases in recent months. This is in addition to the Fed beginning its own process of reducing its balance sheet by not rolling over maturing bonds in its portfolio. Growth of the combined balance sheet of the "G-4" central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England) has been slowing steadily as a result (Chart 6). The ECB continues to contribute the greatest share of that aggregate "G-4" liquidity expansion, although that is projected to slow over the balance of 2018 as the ECB moves towards a full tapering of its bond buying program by the end of the year (top panel). Chart 5Not Every Central Bank##BR##Will Deliver What's Priced Chart 6Risk Assets Are##BR##Exposed To ECB Tapering Barring a sudden sharp downturn in the euro area economy, the ECB is still on track for that taper. We have been expecting a signaling of the taper sometime in the summer, likely after the ECB gains even greater confidence that its inflation target can be reached within its typical two-year forecasting horizon. That story will not be repeated in Japan, however, where core inflation is still struggling to stay much above 0% and economic data is softening. We see very little chance that the BoJ will make any alterations of its current policy settings - with negative deposit rates and a target of 0% on the 10-year JGB yield - this year, as we discussed in a recent Special Report.2 We continue to expect a diminishing liquidity tailwind for global risk assets over the rest of 2018 (bottom two panels). Theme #4: The low market volatility backdrop will end through higher bond volatility: Incremental tightening by central banks, in response to faster inflation, will raise the volatility of global interest rates. This will eventually weigh on global growth expectations over the course of 2018, and create a more volatile backdrop for risk assets in the latter half of the year. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED. We saw a sneak preview of how this theme would play out during that volatility spike at the beginning of February, triggered by only a brief blip up higher in U.S. wage inflation. With a more sustained increase in realized global inflation likely to develop within the next 3-6 months, a return to that world of high volatility is still set to unfold in the latter half of 2018, in our view. After reviewing our four investment themes for 2018 in light of the latest news, we conclude that the themes are largely playing out. Therefore, we will continue to stick with the investment strategy conclusions for this year that were derived from those themes (Table 1):3 Table 1A Pro-Risk Recommended Portfolio In H1/2018, Looking To Get Defensive Later In The Year 2018 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Target a moderate level of portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and overweights on corporate credit versus government debt. These allocations will shift later in the year as central banks shift to a more restrictive monetary policy stance and growth expectations for 2018 become more uncertain. Chart 7Tracking Our Recommendations 2018 Country Allocations: Maintain underweight positions in the U.S., Canada and the Euro Area, keeping a moderate overweight in low-beta Japan, and add small overweights in the U.K. and Australia (where rate hikes are unlikely). The year-to-date performance of the main elements of our model bond portfolio are shown in Chart 7. All returns are shown on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollars. Our country underweights are shown in the top panel, our country overweights in the 2nd panel, our credit overweights in the 3rd panel and our credit underweights in the bottom panel. The broad conclusion is that our best performing underweight is the U.S. and best performing overweight is Japan. All other country allocations are essentially flat on the year (in currency-hedged terms). Our call to overweight corporate debt vs. government debt, focused on the U.S., has performed well, but mostly through our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield. Bottom Line: The investment backdrop is broadly evolving the way that we forecasted in our 2018 Outlook, thus we continue to maintain our core strategic recommendations. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and overweight global corporate debt versus government bonds (focused on the U.S.). Look to reverse that positioning sometime during the latter half of 2018 after global inflation increases and central banks tighten policy more aggressively. Introducing The Japan Corporate Health Monitor Japan's relatively small corporate bond market has not provided much excitement for non-Japanese investors over the years. Japanese companies have always been highly cautious when managing leverage on their balance sheets, and have traditionally relied heavily on bank loans, rather than bond issuance, for debt financing. The result is a corporate bond market with far fewer defaults and downgrades compared to other developed economies, with much lower yields and spreads as well. Due to its small size, poor liquidity and low yields/spreads, we have not paid much attention to Japanese corporate debt in the past. Thus, we don't have the same kinds of indicators available to us for Japanese corporate bond analysis as we have in the U.S., euro area or U.K. One such indicator is the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) to assess the financial health of corporate issuers.4 We are changing that this week by adding a Japan CHM to our global CHM suite of indicators. In other countries, we have both top-down and bottom-up versions of the CHM. The former uses GDP-level data on income statements and balance sheets to determine the individual ratios that go into the CHM (a description of the ratios is shown in Table 2), while the latter uses actual reported financial data at the individual firm level which is aggregated into the CHM. Table 2Definitions Of Ratios##BR##That Go Into The CHM Consistent and timely data availability is an issue for building a top-down CHM, as there is no one source of top-down data on the corporate sector. Some data is available from the BoJ or the Ministry of Finance, or even from international research groups like the OECD, but not all are presented using a consistent methodology. Some data is only available on an annual basis, which significantly diminishes the usefulness of a top-down CHM as a timely indicator for bond investment. Thus, we focused our efforts on only building a bottom-up version of a Japan CHM, using publically available financial information released with higher frequency (quarterly). We focused on non-financial companies (as we do in the CHMs for other countries) and exclude non-Japanese issuers of yen-denominated corporate bonds. In the end, we used data on 43 companies for our bottom-up CHM. By way of comparison, there are only 36 individual issuers in the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Corporate Bond Index that fit the same description of non-financial, non-foreign issuers, highlighting the relatively tiny size of the Japanese corporate bond market. Our new Japan bottom-up CHM is presented in Chart 8. The overall conclusions are the following: Japanese corporate health is in overall excellent shape, with the CHM being in the "improving health" zone for the full decade since the 2008 Financial Crisis. Corporate leverage has steadily declined since 2012, mirroring the rise in company profits and cash balances over the same period. Return on capital is currently back to the pre-2008 highs just below 6%, although operating margins remain two full percentage points below the pre-2008 highs. Interest coverage and the liquidity ratio are both at the highest levels since the mid-2000s, while debt coverage is steadily improving. The overall reading from the CHM is one of solid Japanese creditworthiness and low downgrade and default risks. It is no surprise, then, that corporate bond spreads have traded in a far narrower range than seen in other countries. In Chart 9, we present the yield, spread, return and duration data for the Bloomberg Barclays Japanese Corporate Bond Index. We also show similar data for the Japanese Government Bond Index for comparison. Japanese corporates have a much lower index duration than that of governments, which reflects the greater concentration of corporate issuance at shorter maturities. Chart 8The Japan Corporate Health Monitor Chart 9The Details Of Japan Corporate Bond Index Japanese corporates currently trade at a relatively modest spread of 36bps over Japanese government debt, although that spread only reached a high of just over 100bps during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis - a much lower spread compared to U.S. and European debt of similar credit quality. That is likely a combination of many factors, including the small size of the Japanese corporate market and the relatively smaller level of interest rate volatility in Japan versus other countries. Given the dearth of available bond alternatives with a positive yield in Japan, the "stretch for yield" dynamic has created a demand/supply balance that is very favorable for valuations - especially given the strong health of Japanese issuers. Chart 10Japan Corporates Do Not Like A Rising Yen It remains to be seen how the market will respond to a future economic slowdown in Japan, which may be starting to unfold given the recent string of sluggish data. On that note, the performance of the Japanese yen bears watching, as the currency has a positive correlation to Japanese corporate spreads (Chart 10). The linkage there could be a typical one of risk-aversion, where the yen goes up as risky assets selloff. Or it could be linked to growth expectations, where markets begin to price in the impact on Japanese growth and corporate profits from a stronger currency. Given our view that the BoJ is highly unlikely to make any changes to its monetary policy settings this year, the latest bout of yen strength may not last for much longer. For now, given the link between the yen and Japanese credit spreads, we would advise looking for signs that the yen is rolling over before considering any allocations to Japanese corporate debt. Bottom Line: Japanese companies are in excellent financial shape, according to our new Japan Corporate Health Monitor. Although softening Japanese growth and a firming yen may prevent an outperformance of Japanese corporate debt in the coming months. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22nd 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?", dated February 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Our Model Bond Portfolio In 2018: A Tale Of Two Halves", dated December 19th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For a summary of all of our individual country CHMs, including a description of the methodology, please see the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: No Improvement Despite A Strong Economy", dated November 21st 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Underweight In mid-January we put the S&P consumer discretionary sector on downgrade alert as our EPS model had rolled over. Combined with BCA's high interest rate theme for 2018, it is time to execute the alert and cut the S&P consumer discretionary sector to a below benchmark allocation. Fed tightening, from both higher rates and a balance sheet unwind, is negative for these extremely interest rate-sensitive equities. Both the household financial obligation ratio and household debt service payments have bottomed and are actually increasing. A higher interest rate backdrop will sustain the upward pressure on both and likely weigh on consumer discretionary relative share prices (both series shown inverted, second and third panels). Our Consumer Drag Indicator (bottom panel) captures this, as well as other factors, and sends a clear message that relative share price momentum will dwindle in the coming months. As such, we recommend a below benchmark allocation in the S&P consumer discretionary index; please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.

Highlights Duration: Fed Governor Lael Brainard stated last week that many of the headwinds that held back growth between 2014 and 2016 have faded. This acknowledgement from the most dovish Fed Governor opens the door for a more aggressive pace of Fed rate hikes, and gives the green light to the cyclical bond bear market. Labor Market: The economy continues to add jobs at a rapid pace, but there is some debate about whether the unemployment rate accurately reflects the amount of slack in the labor market. We find that even using the broadest measures of labor market slack, we should expect to see wages accelerate in the coming months. Credit Cycle: Corporate profit growth remains strong for now, but rising unit labor costs will cause profit growth to sustainably fall below debt growth later this year. This will lead to rising corporate leverage and wider bond spreads. We stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once our inflation targets are met. Feature Chart 1Fed's Current Projections Are Priced In The cyclical bond bear market is at a critical juncture. The yield curve has now largely priced-in the Fed's median fed funds rate projections (Chart 1), and this raises the possibility that the bear market could stall unless the Fed starts to signal a more aggressive path for hikes. With that in mind, last week's speech by Fed Governor Lael Brainard caught our attention.1 As the most dovish member of the Board of Governors, Governor Brainard's speeches are important bellwethers of inflection points in monetary policy. This is particularly true when the speeches convey a more hawkish tone, as was the case last week. Governor Brainard's shift in tone signals that the Fed is poised to adopt a somewhat more aggressive tightening bias. This will likely lead to upward revisions to its interest rate projections and give the green light for the cyclical bond bear market to continue. Brainard On Growth Comparatively weak economic growth outside of the U.S. has been a perennial concern for Governor Brainard, and indeed a key theme in this publication.2 But last week she acknowledged that this dynamic has shifted: Today many economies around the world are experiencing synchronized growth, in contrast to the 2015-16 period when important foreign economies experienced adverse shocks and anemic demand. [...] The upward revisions to the foreign economic outlook are also pulling forward expectations of monetary policy tightening abroad and contributing to an appreciation of foreign currencies and increases in U.S. import prices. By contrast, foreign currencies weakened in the earlier period, pushing the dollar higher and U.S. import prices lower. Chart 2 shows the dramatic shift that has occurred since mid-2016. The Global Manufacturing PMI has soared, and all but one of the 36 countries with available data now have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. As a consequence, the U.S. dollar has depreciated and import prices have surged. A more broadly-based global recovery is bearish for U.S. bonds. With less drag from a stronger U.S. dollar, interest rates must rise further to achieve the same amount of monetary tightening. Although we would still characterize the global economic recovery as highly synchronized, we recently flagged some preliminary signals that suggest the breadth of global growth might be deteriorating.3 Specifically, we observe that leading indicators of Chinese economic activity have rolled over, and the outperformance of emerging market currency carry trades has moderated (Chart 2, bottom panel). We will closely monitor both of these indicators during the next few months to see if the weakness persists, or if it starts to bleed into broader global growth aggregates. While the more optimistic assessment of global growth was the starkest change between last week's speech and Governor Brainard's earlier missives, she also noted reasons for optimism on the domestic front. Nonresidential investment is hooking up, and leading indicators point to further gains (Chart 3, panel 1). Financial conditions remain accommodative despite persistent Fed tightening. This differs from the mid-2014 to mid-2016 period when financial conditions tightened even though monetary policy was more accommodative (Chart 3, panel 2). Most importantly, the economy is poised to receive a huge dose of fiscal stimulus during the next two years in the form of a $1.5 trillion tax cut and a $300 billion increase in federal spending (Chart 3, bottom panel). Even our simple tracking estimate for U.S. GDP suggests that growth is shifting into a higher gear. Aggregate hours worked are growing at an annual pace of 2.2%. When coupled with a conservative estimate of 0.8% for productivity growth - the average since 2012 - that translates into real GDP growth of 3%, well above the average pace of 2.2% we've seen since 2010 (Chart 4). With growth that strong we will almost certainly see further tightening of the labor market in 2018. Chart 2Synchronized Growth Is Bond Bearish Chart 3Domestic Tailwinds Chart 4U.S. GDP Tracking At 3% Brainard On The Labor Market A key question for policymakers is how much slack remains in the labor market. If the Fed views the labor market as at full employment, then it necessarily expects inflation to accelerate and should be prepared to tighten policy. Conversely, an economy with significant labor market slack is not expected to generate inflation. Officially, the Fed's most recent Monetary Policy Report to Congress describes the labor market as "near or a little beyond full employment",4 and in last week's speech Governor Brainard gave an excellent summary of the risks surrounding that assessment. First, she noted that "if the unemployment rate were to continue to fall in the coming year at the same pace as in the past couple of years, it would reach levels not seen since the late 1960s" (Chart 5). With growth set to accelerate, we view this as a very likely outcome. In fact, we calculate that, assuming a flat labor force participation rate, the U.S. economy needs to add only 123k jobs each month to keep the unemployment rate under downward pressure. The economy has added an average of 190k jobs per month during the past year, and added a shocking 313k in February (Chart 6). We anticipate it will be some time before job growth falls below the 123k threshold. Chart 5How Much Slack? Chart 6Employment Growth However, it is possible that the unemployment rate is masking some hidden slack in the labor market. Governor Brainard noted that "the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers remains more than 1 percentage point below its pre-crisis level" (Chart 5, panel 2). "If substantially more workers could be drawn into the labor force, it would be possible for the labor market to firm notably further without generating imbalances." Chart 7Wage Growth Set To Accelerate In other words, if the labor force participation rate increases, then the unemployment rate could level-off even if job growth remains robust. This would keep a lid on inflation for longer than would be the case otherwise. In our view it will be very difficult for the participation rate to rise meaningfully on a cyclical horizon. As Governor Brainard noted in her speech: "declining labor force participation among prime-age workers predates the crisis" (Chart 5, bottom panel). Added to that, now nine years into the economic recovery, it is questionable whether workers that have been out of the labor force for so long are even able to be drawn back in. Our sense is that the unemployment rate will decline further in the coming months, and it will not be long before that translates into upward pressure on wages. It is important to note that whether we use the unemployment rate or the prime-age employment-to-population ratio as our preferred measure of labor market slack, we are very close to levels that have coincided with exponential wage gains in past cycles (Chart 7). Brainard On Inflation As discussed in our report from two weeks ago, our view is that the headwinds that had been working against inflation are set to fade this year.5 While Governor Brainard agrees that "transitory factors no doubt played a role in last year's step-down in core PCE inflation," she remains concerned that inflation's underlying trend may have softened. Brainard's concern relates to various measures of inflation expectations that are still below levels that prevailed prior to the financial crisis (Chart 8). Without expectations adjusting higher it is doubtful whether inflation can sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. We share this concern, but note that the cost of inflation protection priced into bond yields has surged in recent months. Survey measures take longer to adjust than market prices, but we anticipate that these measures will also rise as inflation recovers in 2018. The further that measures of inflation expectations (both market-based and survey-based) recover, the more Brainard's concerns about a decline in inflation's underlying trend will fade into the background. Bottom Line: Governor Brainard correctly observed that many of the headwinds that held back growth between 2014 and 2016 have faded. This acknowledgement from the most dovish Fed Governor opens the door for a more aggressive pace of Fed rate hikes, and gives the green light to the cyclical bond bear market. How Sustainable Is Corporate Profit Growth? We've been growing more cautious on the outlook for credit spreads during the past few months, principally because the shift toward a less accommodative monetary policy removes an important support for the corporate bond trade. We view the Fed as getting even more hawkish once inflation expectations are re-anchored around pre-crisis levels, and as such we stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 8, panels 1 & 2). At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 2.12% and the 5-year/5-year forward rate was 2.14%. But this is only one piece of the puzzle. For a true bear market in corporate bonds to set in we also need to see rising leverage and mounting defaults. At least for now that is not happening. Our measure of gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - calculated as total debt divided by EBITD - has flattened off during the past year, and the 12-month trailing default rate is in a steady decline (Chart 9). Chart 8The Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations Chart 9Wider Spreads Need Rising Leverage Chart 9 shows that periods of sustained corporate spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage. Or put differently, for corporate spreads to widen we need to see corporate debt growth consistently exceed profit growth (Chart 9, panel 2). At first blush it is not obvious that profit growth will weaken any time soon. Leading indicators such as total business sales less inventories and the ISM manufacturing index point to a favorable profit outlook (Chart 10). Profit growth should also continue to benefit from dollar weakness for at least the next few months (Chart 10, bottom panel). But there is one leading profit indicator that is starting to flash red. A simple profit margin proxy created by taking the difference between the nonfarm business sector's implicit price deflator and its unit labor costs turned negative in Q4. Chart 11 shows that, although this indicator can be volatile, sustained negative readings almost always foreshadow periods of falling profit growth and corporate bond underperformance. Chart 10Rising Leverage Needs Weaker Profit Growth Chart 11Watch Unit Labor Costs In 2018 The Q4 weakness was driven by a big jump in unit labor costs, and with labor markets as tight as they are this is certainly a trend we see continuing. Unless corporate selling prices can keep pace we will see profit growth sustainably fall below debt growth this year, and this will lead to corporate bond underperformance. Bottom Line: Corporate profit growth remains strong for now, but rising unit labor costs will cause profit growth to sustainably fall below debt growth later this year. This will lead to rising corporate leverage and wider bond spreads. We stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once our inflation targets are met. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180306a.htm 2 Please see Theme 3 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017" dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20180223_mprfullreport.pdf 5 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

Informe especial

Highlights Data based on Bloomberg/Barclays global treasury/aggregate indexes from December 1990 to January 2018 supports the argument that foreign government bonds are not worthy of investing in when unhedged, due to extremely high volatility. On a hedged basis, however, foreign bonds are a good source of risk reduction for bond portfolios. Hedging not only reduces volatility of a foreign government bond portfolio, it reduces it so much that on a risk adjusted-return basis, foreign government bonds outperform both domestic government bonds and domestic credit for investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., the U.S. and Canada. Aussie and kiwi fixed income investors stand out as the biggest beneficiaries of investing overseas, because hedged foreign government bonds not only provide lower volatility compared to domestic bonds, but also higher returns. This empirical evidence does not support the strong home bias of Aussie and kiwi investors. Investors in the euro area also benefit from the risk reduction of hedged foreign exposure. However, they also suffer significant return reduction - such that the improvement in risk-adjusted returns is not significant. Investors in Japan do enjoy higher returns from foreign government bonds, hedged and unhedged, yet at the cost of much higher volatility, with risk-adjusted returns also not justifying investing overseas. This empirical finding does not lend support to the "search for yield" strategy that has been very popular among Japanese investors. Feature Practitioners and academics do not often agree with one another on investment management issues, but when it comes to whether to hedge foreign government bonds, both accept that foreign government bonds should be fully hedged because currency volatility overwhelms bond volatility. Yet hedged total returns from foreign government bonds are very similar to those from domestic bonds for investors in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, while worse in the euro area. Only in Japan, Australia and New Zealand do investors enjoy higher hedged returns from investing in foreign bonds, as shown in Chart 1 based on Bloomberg/Barclays Global Treasury Indexes hedged to their respective home currencies. So why do investors in the U.S., U.K. and euro area, whose own government bond markets currently account for about 60% of the global treasury index universe (Chart 2), even bother to invest in foreign government bonds? Even for those who may achieve higher returns overseas, would they not be better off just buying domestic corporate bonds (for the potentially higher returns from taking domestic credit risk) rather than venturing into foreign countries and taking the trouble to hedge currency risk? Indeed, home bias among bond investors globally is a lot higher than among equity investors. Chart 1Domestic Vs. Foreign Bonds Chart 2Country Weights In Global Treasury Index In this report, we present empirical evidence based on Bloomberg/Barclays domestic treasury indexes and aggregate bond indexes, hedged and unhedged global treasury indexes in seven different currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD and NZD), in the context of strategic asset allocation. In a future report, we will attempt to identify the driving forces underpinning the decisions between investing in domestic bonds versus foreign bonds in the context of tactical asset allocation. Hedged Foreign Government Bonds Are a Good Source Of Diversification When a foreign bond is hedged back to the domestic currency, its total return correlation with domestic bonds is quite high. As shown in Chart 3, domestic bonds and their respective hedged foreign bonds have an average correlation of around 70% for all currencies, with the exception of the JPY. For Japanese investors, hedged foreign bonds have a much lower correlation with JGBs, averaging around 30%. Intuitively, there should not be a high incentive for USD, GBP, CAD, EUR, AUD and NZD based investors to invest in foreign bonds, while JPY based investors should benefit from the diversification of hedged foreign bonds. In reality, the very high home bias among fixed income investors in general and the popularity of search-for-yield carry trades among Japanese individual investors seems to support this. Is there empirical evidence that shows the same thing? Table 1 presents statistics from Bloomberg/Barclays domestic treasury indexes and their respective market cap-weighted foreign treasury indexes, hedged and unhedged, in USD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD and NZD. Please see Appendix 1 for the hedged return calculation. Chart 3High Correlations Table 1Domestic And Foreign Government Bond Profile (Dec 1999 - Jan 2018) On an unhedged basis, foreign bonds have much higher volatility compared to domestic bonds for all investors. In terms of return, only Japanese investors enjoy higher yields overseas. On a risk-adjusted return basis, all investors are worse off in investing in unhedged foreign bonds. This is in line with the "conventional wisdom" acknowledged by both academics and practitioners. Hedging not only reduces the corresponding foreign bond portfolio's volatility, it reduces it so much, for all currencies other than the JPY, that the foreign bond portfolio has lower volatility than domestic bonds. As such, in terms of risk-adjusted return, hedged foreign bonds outperform domestic government bonds in all countries except Japan. This implies that on a risk-adjusted return basis, Japanese investors should not invest in hedged foreign bonds at all, while other investors should. Even more shockingly, Table 1 shows that AUD and NZD investors would have achieved both higher returns and lower volatility by investing in hedged foreign bonds. These implications appear to fly in the face of common sense for AUD and NZD investors, because their domestic bonds have much higher returns than others, while in reality Japanese retail investors are keen on "carry trades" as a way to enhance yields. What has caused such significant discrepancies? Could it be simply due to the time period chosen? Chart 4 and Chart 5 present the results of the same analysis performed over different periods: the whole period from 1990, when the majority of the Bloomberg/Barclays indexes first became available; pre-euro (1990-2000); after the euro and before the global financial crisis (GFC); and after the GFC (the extremely low-yield period). Surprisingly, the relative performance of hedged foreign bonds versus domestic bonds for each currency has been quite consistent across all the time periods in terms of risk-adjusted returns, even though absolute performance varied in different periods. Chart 4Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time (1) Chart 5Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time (2) So when it comes to investing in hedged foreign government bonds, investors with different home currencies should bear the following observations in mind: For Japanese investors, the slightly higher yield enhancement from hedged foreign bonds comes with sharply higher volatility compared to JGBs. The risk-adjusted return does not justify investing in foreign bonds.1 This is mostly because Japanese bonds have below-average volatility, while hedged foreign bonds have above-average volatility. For euro area investors, the lower volatility from foreign bonds is at the expense of lower returns. The improvement in risk-adjusted returns is not significant enough to justify the extra work in hedging. U.K. gilts have the highest volatility. As such, U.K. investors have benefited the most in risk reduction from buying hedged foreign bonds, to the slight detriment of returns. Consequently, they are better off investing in hedged foreign government bonds if improving risk-adjusted return is the objective. The Aussie and kiwi government bond markets are very small in terms of market cap (Chart 2). Fortunately, hedged foreign bonds not only have lower volatility than domestic bonds, they also provide much higher returns. Indeed, Aussie and kiwi investors are the most suitable candidates for going global. For U.S. and Canadian investors, hedged foreign portfolios and domestic indexes share similar returns, but foreign portfolios have much lower volatility, hence better risk-adjusted returns. Hedging currencies is not an easy task. Would investors not be better off taking domestic credit risks than investing in hedged foreign government bonds? Domestic Credit Or Hedged Foreign Government Bonds? The Bloomberg/Barclays domestic aggregate bond indexes are comprised of treasuries, government-related, corporate, and securitized bonds. Chart 6 shows the total returns of the aggregate bond indexes and the corresponding treasury weights in each country index. It is clear that Japan's credit portion is very small, while the U.S. and Canadian credit markets dominate their corresponding treasury markets. In the euro area and Australia, credit accounts for about half of the aggregate index, while it is only about 30% in the U.K. Since some aggregate indexes have a short history (Chart 6), we use the corresponding treasury index to fill in the missing links. In the case of New Zealand, an aggregate index does not exist at all, local treasury bonds are used instead in our analysis below. Table 2 presents the risk/return profiles of the Bloomberg/Barclays domestic aggregate bond indexes, and the same market cap-weighted global treasury index hedged and unhedged in USD JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD and NZD. Chart 6Aggregate Bond Index Composition Table 2Domestic Aggregate Bond Index Vs. Hedged Global Treasury Index (Dec 1999 - Jan 2018) Domestic credits also improve the risk-adjusted returns for all the investors, and for investors in the U.S., Canada and Australia, credits also add returns while reducing volatility compared to their respective treasury indexes. However, the hedged global treasury index has much lower volatility than the domestic aggregate index such that on a risk-adjusted-return basis, the hedged global treasury index still outperforms the local aggregate index for all investors except those in Japan and the euro area. Similar to the findings in the previous section, this observation also holds true across all the time periods as shown in Charts 7 and 8. Aussie and kiwi investors stand out again as the best beneficiaries of going global because the hedged global treasury indexes not only have lower volatility than the domestic aggregate bond indexes, they also provide higher returns. Chart 7Domestic Aggregate Vs. Global Treasury: Consistent Performance Across Time (3) Chart 8Domestic Aggregate Vs. Global Treasury: Consistent Performance Across Time (4) This raises an interesting question for asset allocators: which bond index should one use to measure the performances of global bond managers? It is common for some pension funds and mutual funds to use a domestic aggregate bond index as a benchmark to measure their bond managers' performance. In such a case, what are you really paying for if your managers have the discretion to buy hedged foreign government bonds? Another interesting observation is that the hedged global treasury index has almost the same volatility around 2.85% in different currencies. This essentially levels out the playing-field for bond managers globally in terms of volatility, a very important criteria for bond investors. Is High Home Bias Justifiable? There are many well-known reasons that explain why home bias in bond portfolios is typically high. But are investors giving up too much for the comfort of "staying home"? Chart 9 shows the effects of adding hedged foreign government bonds into a portfolio of domestic aggregate bonds for each investor based on two timeframes - from 1990 and from 1999 to the present. The messages are clear: If investors are comfortable with the volatility in their domestic aggregate bond index, which is already a lot lower than equities, then investors in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and the euro area are better off staying home for higher returns without dealing with currency hedging operations. For Aussie, kiwi and Japanese investors, however, going abroad enhances returns. Chart 9Is High Home Bias Justifiable? If investors focus on lower volatility, then all investors should invest a large portion of their portfolios overseas, with the exception of Japanese investors. If investors focus on risk-adjusted returns, then investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., the U.K., the euro area and Canada are better off investing a large portion overseas. In short, while there may be some justification for most fixed-income investors to maintain a home bias, empirical evidence does not lend strong support to Aussie and kiwi investors having a home bias at all. Chart 9 shows that Australian and New Zealand investors should consider investing 70-90% of their fixed income portfolio in hedged foreign government bonds for higher returns and lower volatility. Implications For Asset Allocators Chart 10What Drives The Dynamics Between ##br## Foreign And Domestic Bonds? The analysis presented in this report is by nature based on historical data. The findings may not apply to the future, especially because the periods for which we have data cover only the great bull market in government bonds. However, this exercise does provide some interesting aspects for consideration: Should hedged foreign government bonds have a presence in strategic asset allocation? If your fixed income managers have the discretion to invest in foreign government bonds, then is it appropriate for you to use a domestic aggregate bond index to measure their performance? In the context of strategic asset allocation, the answer to the first question is yes and to the second is no, as implied by the analysis in this report. In the context of tactical asset allocation, however, the answer may well be different. In a later report, we will attempt to identify the factors that drive the dynamics between domestic and hedged foreign bonds because the most obvious factor, interest rate differentials, cannot fully explain it as shown in Chart 10. Stay tuned. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com 1 Granted, Japanese retail investors do not pay attention to risk adjusted returns as much as institutional investors do. Therefore their buying unhedged foreign bonds is consistent with their yield enhancement objective, albeit at much higher volatility. Appendix 1: Bond Hedged Return Calculation We use the same methodology as Bloomberg/Barclays1 to calculate hedged return using one-month forward contracts and re-balancing on a monthly basis. This is unlike equity hedging, where the gain or loss of the underlying index during the month is not hedged.2 A bond index can be reasonably assumed to grow at the nominal yield (yield to worst is used). Only the gain/loss that is different from the stated yield during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. Hedged return using forward contract: 1+Rd,t+1= (Pt+1 * St+1 ) / (Pt * St ) + Ht*(Ft - St+1)/ St..............................................(1) Where: Pt and Pt+1 are the foreign bond total return index levels at time t and t+1 in corresponding foreign currencies; St and St+1 are the foreign currency exchange rates versus the domestic currency at time t and t+1, quoted as one unit of foreign currency equal to how many units of domestic currency; Ht = (1 + Yt/2)(1/6) is the hedged notional; Yt is the yield to worst; Ft is the foreign currency's one-month forward rate at time t for delivery at time t+1; Rd,t+1 is the hedged total return in domestic currency of the foreign hedge index between time t and t+1. 1 https://www.bbhub.io/indices/sites/2/2017/03/Index-Methodology-2017-03-17-FINAL-FINAL.pdf 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com

Highlights BCA's view is that while a major trade war is unlikely, trade tensions will persist. The Fed, not protectionism, will end the cycle. There have been five episodes in the past 35 years when global growth surged and fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy were all aligned to boost the U.S. economy. The March Beige Book keeps the Fed on track to hike four times this year. Feature The Trump Administration's announcement last week to slap hefty tariffs on steel and aluminum runs the risk of provoking a "tit-for-tat" trade war. This proposed levy follows a similar move earlier this year to impose tariffs on washers and solar panels. The EU has retaliated with a threat to introduce tariffs on Harley Davidson motorcycles and Levi's jeans. Even if a trade war develops, our Global Investment Strategy team notes1 that the U.S. would suffer less in a trade war than other nations, and that higher tariffs may lead to more domestic demand, a more aggressive Fed and a stronger dollar. Certainly, the tariff issue does not signal the end of the U.S. economic expansion or equity bull market. BCA's view is that while a major trade war is unlikely, trade tensions will persist. Our Geopolitical Strategy service states2 that investors should closely monitor bellwether factors for trade policies, including Trump's position on NAFTA, exemptions granted on the steel and aluminum tariffs to countries (such as Mexico and Canada) and most importantly, the treatment of intellectual property trade with China. Bottom Line: The end of the equity bull market will probably be due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, and not escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Policy Panacea The backdrop for U.S. economic growth remains solid. Consensus global GDP projections for 2018 and 2019 have perked up, in contrast with prior years when forecasters issued relentless lower GDP estimates (Chart 1). Moreover, global exports growth is in a persistent uptrend since the earlier part of 2016 (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. & Global Growth Expectations Are Still Accelerating The surge in global growth occurs even as China's economy is poised to slow. Among the components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (an index designed to lead turning points in the Li Keqiang), all six series are in a downtrend, and five fell in January (the growth in M2 was the exception).3 Although China's economy is decelerating, BCA's view is that a repeat of the late 2015/early 2016 shock is unlikely (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Exports##BR##Are Booming... Chart 3Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests##BR##A Benign Slowdown In Growth In China The U.S. economy and financial markets will benefit from the uptick in global growth, a large dose of fiscal policy, still accommodative monetary policy, and a decline in regulation. Table 1 and Chart 4 show that there have been four other junctures in the past 35 years when these factors all pulled in the same direction to boost the U.S. economy. The current episode of synchronized policy commenced in January 2016. All four previous periods occurred closer to the start and not the end of a business cycle; BCA's stance is that the U.S. economy is in the late stages of an economic expansion that began in 2009. These phases lasted, on average, for just under two years. The current phase is entering its third year. The longest was in the early 2000s (2002-2004), while the shortest was a 14-month interval in the first year of the 1991-2001 economic expansion. Three of the prior four periods ended as fiscal policy turned restrictive. In the early 1980s' chapter, a reversal in global IP signaled the end of the growth sweet spot. Performance Of U.S. Financial Assets, Gold, Oil And Earnings When Global Growth Is Increasing Alongside Stimulative Monetary, Fiscal And Regulatory Policy .... Chart 4Global Growth, Fiscal, Monetary And Regulatory Policy##BR##All Pulling In The Same Direction Not surprisingly, risk assets perform well during these "tailwind" points (Table 1 again and Chart 5). The S&P 500 rose in the previous four periods and again in the current one. However, BCA's stock-to-bond ratio fell in the early 1990s and early 2000s. Credit tends to outperform Treasuries when monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy are synchronized, and small caps outperform large. This is the case in the current episode that began in January 2016. Gold and oil also perform well when global growth is surging, fiscal and monetary policy is stimulative and regulations are on the wane. However, on average, the dollar falls during these intervals as demonstrated in the early 2000s and early 2010s. S&P 500 earnings growth is solid and well above average during these phases. Chart 5U.S. Risk Assets In Periods Of Strong Global Growth And Synchronized Policy Push Table 2 shows that U.S. risk assets tend to struggle in the year after these legs end, but the economy keeps flourishing. Stocks underperformed bonds a year after the end of two of the four periods, but none of those periods coincided with a recession. Investment-grade and high-yield credit underperforms Treasuries in the ensuing 12 months, while small caps struggle to keep up with large. Gold performs well in three of the four periods, but oil posts a mixed performance. The dollar rises and S&P 500 earnings per share increase in the year after stretches of synchronous policy, but at a much slower pace than when the stimulative fiscal policy, deregulation and easy monetary policy are all in place. Table 2... What Happens In The 12 Months After These Episodes End... Tighter Fed policy will end the current era of pro-growth policies. BCA's stance is that the Fed will raise rates four times this year and another three or four times next year, pushing monetary policy into restrictive territory. U.S. fiscal policy will likely add to growth into the next year, thanks to tax cuts and the lifting of spending caps, and Trump will continue to look for deregulation opportunities. Bottom Line: Fed tightening will end the latest era of deregulation, easy monetary policy and stimulative fiscal policy, but not until early next year. Until then, a favorable backdrop will persist for stocks over bonds, credit, S&P 500 earnings and oil. Stay long stocks and credit, and underweight duration. This forecast assumes that the trade spat does not degenerate into a trade war. If that occurs, we would recommend reducing our overweight to risk assets sooner than early next year. Beige Book: More Tailwinds Fed Chair Powell's February 27 testimony to Congress noted that "some of the headwinds the U.S. economy faced in previous years have turned into tailwinds."4 The Beige Book released on March 7 highlights many of those tailwinds, keeps the Fed on track to boost rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's quantitative approach5 to the Beige Book's qualitative data points to underlying strength in GDP and a tighter labor market. Furthermore, the disconnect between the Beige Book's view of inflation and the market's stance has eased. Moreover, references to a stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book and business uncertainty is significantly reduced, reflecting the tax cut bill and Trump's assault on regulation. The latest Beige Book ran from mid-January to February 26 and, therefore, did not capture the business community's reaction to the tariff announcement in early March. Chart 6, panel 1 shows that at 67% in March, BCA's Beige Book Monitor stayed near its cycle highs, which reconfirms that the underlying economy was upbeat in early 2018. The number of 'weak' words in the Beige Book returned to near four-year lows after ticking higher in the wake of last summer's hurricanes. Moreover, there were 15 mentions of the tax bill in the March Beige Book, up from 12 in January and only 3 in November 2017 (not shown). The tax bill was cast in a positive light in 87% of the remarks in March versus 75% in January. In November, the references to either the tax bill (or tax reform) cited the consequent uncertainty as a constraint on growth. Chart 6Latest Beige Book Supports##BR##The Fed's View On Rates, Inflation And Economy Based on the minimal references to a robust dollar in the past six Beige Books, the greenback should not be an issue in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018. This sharply contrasts with 2015 and early 2016 when there were surges in Beige Book mentions (Chart 6, panel 4). The last time that six consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) multiplied in the past few Beige Books as Congress debated the tax bill. However, in general, these comments have dropped since Trump took office in early 2017. The implication is that the business community is correctly focused on policy and not politics in D.C. (Chart 6, panel 5). However, the controversy associated with the tariffs on steel and aluminum will add to business unease in the coming months unless Trump reverses his position. The disagreement between the Fed and the market on inflation narrowed in the March edition of the Beige Book (Chart 6, panel 3). The number of inflation words in the Beige Book rose to an 8 month high in March, reflecting the abrupt change in sentiment on inflation in early 2018 both in the business community and the market. In the past year, inflation words in the Beige Book climbed as the readings on CPI and PCE rolled over. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The March Beige Book supports BCA's view that the U.S. economy is poised to expand above its long-term potential in the first half of 2018. Moreover, the elevated soundings on inflation in the Beige Book in recent years have again proved prescience, as price measures are poised to turn higher. While the first few Beige Books in 2018 showed that the business and financial communities welcomed tax cut legislation, the next edition will likely reflect elevated concern over the nation's trade policies. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A", published March 9, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", published March 6, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation", published March 7, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/powell20180226a.htm 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues," published April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Quantitative tightening, a rising fed funds rate and higher prices at the pump are all bearish consumer discretionary stocks. Downgrade exposure to underweight. We are executing this interest rate-sensitive sector downgrade by reducing the S&P movies & entertainment and S&P cable & satellite sub-indexes to underweight. A downbeat industry spending backdrop and fading pricing power paint a gloomy EPS picture. Recent Changes S&P Consumer Discretionary - Downgrade to underweight today. S&P Movies & Entertainment - Trim to underweight today. S&P Cable & Satellite - Downgrade to underweight today. Table 1 Feature Equities are still in the recovery ward and the consolidation/absorption phase in place since the February 5th crack has yet to fully run its course. According to our "buy the dip" cycle-on-cycle analysis, a retest of the recent lows typically occurs in the first month following the initial shock, suggesting that the market is already out of the woods (Chart 1A). However, the return of vol may keep a lid on the SPX for a while longer (Chart 1B). Our strategy in place since February 8th is to buy this dip as we do not foresee an end to the business cycle in 2018.1 Chart 1ABuy This Dip Worked Out Nicely... Chart 1BBut The Return Of Vol May Spoil The Party Recent tariff news has dominated the media, however, our sense is that a full blown retaliatory trade war is a low probability outcome. Keep in mind, that the average U.S. tariff rates have drifted lower during the past three decades and, according to the World Bank, are now 1.6%, one of the lowest in the world2 (third panel, Chart 2). And as for concerns that the rhetoric surrounding trade will lead to a surge in the U.S. dollar, we note that the last two times there was a trade spat of sorts the U.S. dollar actually depreciated, both in the early-2000s and in the early-to-mid 1990s (Chart 2). Tack on the recent euphoria surrounding manufacturing exports - which just hit a 30-year high - and it is likely that deep cyclical EPS would overshoot were a trade war to ensue (bottom panel, Chart 2). Such a weak U.S. dollar policy is also a boon for overall SPX profits, if history at least rhymes (Chart 3). Chart 2Tariffs Don't Matter Chart 3SPX EPS Would Get a Boost From A Tariff War Importantly, synchronized global growth and the selloff in the bond markets remain the dominant macro themes. Last week we showed that since the GFC, empirical evidence suggests that the U.S. economy can withstand a tightening of roughly 125bps in a short time span (please see Chart 3B from the March 5th Special Report). This week we add two components to our interest rate analysis and increase the dataset range back to the 1960s. We compare cyclical momentum in the SPX with the annual change in the 10-year Treasury yield, and also document the shifting correlation between these two asset classes. We then filter for a minimum year-over-year (yoy) 100bps tightening in the 10-year Treasury yield and a clear indication of a negative correlation between the two variables, i.e. a deceleration or straight up contraction in the SPX annual percent change. In other words, we are searching for tightness in monetary conditions that cause equity market consternation, excluding recessions. Table 2 summarizes our results. While cyclical stock momentum and changes in the 10-year Treasury yield have been a near carbon copy since the late-1990s (Chart 4), according to our analysis there have been five iterations when rising bond yields proved restrictive for equities: once in each of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s and twice in the 1980s. Table 2SPX Returns In Times Of ##br##Restrictive 10-Year UST Selloffs Chart 4The Great ##br##Moderation Years In the mid-1960s, the U.S. deployed troops in Vietnam and the Fed also tightened monetary policy by enough to invert the yield curve (Chart 5). During the mid-1970s episode, fresh off the first oil shock-induced recession, the Fed started tightening monetary policy in 1977 in order to contain inflation and never looked back. Eventually, the Fed inverted the yield curve in late-1978 before the second oil shock hit that morphed into the early-1980s recession (Chart 6). Chart 5100bps Tightening... Chart 6...Can Hurt Equities... In the 1980s, following the double dip recession, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker started lifting interest rates as the economy was recovering, and similarly in 1987 the Fed was aggressively tightening monetary policy up until the "Black Monday" crash (Chart 7). Finally, in 1994 the Fed doubled interest rates in a span of nine months and in December of that year Mexico had to devalue the peso and the "Tequila effect" gripped Asia and Latin America. Such abrupt tightening caused a mild indigestion in the stock market (Chart 8). Chart 7...When The Stock-To-Bond Yield Correlation... Chart 8...Turns Negative On average, the SPX drawdown from peak-to-trough during these five iterations was 19% and lasted 6.5 months. Currently, in order for interest rates to turn from reflective of growth to restrictive and cause a sizable pullback in the SPX, we calculate that the 10-year Treasury yield would have to rise above 3.05% by September 2018. Simultaneously, the correlation between stocks and bond yields would have to sink into negative territory. Nevertheless, given the steepness of the recent selloff in bonds, in order for the yoy 100bps rule of thumb to remain in place, post September the 10-year Treasury yield should continue to gallop higher and end the year near 3.5%, and further rise to 3.94% in early 2019. While this is possible, we assign low odds to such an outcome. As a reminder, BCA's higher interest rate view calls for a selloff in the 10-year Treasury bond near 3.25% by year-end 2018, a level that both the economy and the SPX will likely be able to shake off (Chart 4). This week we act on our mid-January alert and downgrade an interest rate-sensitive sector to underweight. Trim Consumer Discretionary To Underweight In mid-January we put the S&P consumer discretionary sector on downgrade alert heeding the anemic signal from our EPS growth model and also owing to BCA's high interest rate theme for 2018. We are now acting on the alert and cutting exposure and moving the S&P consumer discretionary sector to a below benchmark allocation. At this stage of the cycle, when the Fed is on track to continue to steadily lift interest rates in the coming two years as the economy heats up, investors should lighten up on consumer discretionary stocks (Chart 9). In addition, this cycle the Fed is orchestrating dual tightening as it is simultaneously unwinding the size of its balance sheet. Quantitative tightening is also bearish discretionary stocks (Chart 10). Chart 9Mind The Fed Funds Rate Chart 10Quantitative Tightening Also Bites This rising short-term interest rate backdrop is not conducive to owning extremely interest rate-sensitive equities. Both the household financial obligation ratio and household debt service payments have bottomed and are actually increasing. A higher interest rate backdrop will sustain the upward pressure on both and likely weigh on consumer discretionary relative share prices (both series shown inverted, Chart 11). The U.S. consumer has been firing on all cylinders with PCE growing 4% in real terms last quarter and contributing positively to overall real output growth (Chart 12). Chart 11Household Financing ##br##Costs Have Troughed Chart 124% Real PCE Growth Is##br## Unsustainable Absent Wage Inflation However, such a breakneck pace is unsustainable without wage inflation follow through. Worrisomely, the personal savings rate has been depleted to the point where the consumer appears tapped out. Historically, consumer confidence and the savings rate have been perfectly inversely correlated (Chart 13). Sky high sentiment and almost zero savings suggest that the consumer has to resort to credit card debt in order to finance outlays in the absence of wage inflation. Revolving credit is soaring, but worryingly credit card delinquency and chargeoff rates at small commercial banks are at recession type levels, warning that this credit outlet may be drying up (Chart 14). Chart 13Depleted Savings Are Problematic Chart 14Early Signs Of Trouble? All of this is taking place at a time when bankers are still not willing extenders of consumer installment credit, according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey. The implication is that even a modest tick down in consumer confidence and simultaneous rebuilding of savings will likely, at the margin, dent consumer spending. Another macro headwind the consumer has to contend with is higher prices at the pump. BCA's constructive crude oil view suggests that increasing gasoline prices will continue to eat into consumer discretionary spending power. Taken together, these macro headwinds will dampen consumer discretionary outlays. Our Consumer Drag Indicator captures these forces and is signaling that relative share price momentum will dwindle in the coming months (Chart 15). Under such a backdrop, while consumer discretionary EPS can expand modestly, they will trail the broad market that is slated to grow profits close to 20% in calendar 2018. Relative performance will likely converge lower to falling relative profitability (top panel, Chart 16). We currently side with the sell-side community and expect a contraction in relative profit growth. Therefore, not only are we unwilling to pay an 18% premium valuation to own this interest rate-sensitive sector, but we would also sell into strength given our view of a derating phase taking root in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 16). Our Cyclical Macro Indicator confirms this downbeat relative EPS growth outlook, and underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for consumer discretionary stocks (Chart 15). Chart 15Models Say Sell Chart 16Unsustainable Divergence Finally, a few words on AMZN.3 Cracks have already formed in relative share prices ex-AMZN (top panel, Chart 11). The AMZN juggernaut has masked the true consumer discretionary picture given its hefty market cap weight in the index (20%) that will only increase in late-summer following the already announced S&P index composition changes. Accordingly at that time, we will also make changes to our portfolio. While we maintain a neutral exposure to the S&P internet retail index, that AMZN dominates4 and that we recently initiated coverage on, the way we are executing the S&P consumer discretionary downgrade to underweight is by trimming the media index to a below benchmark allocation. Media: Exit Stage Right Since the late 1970s the media complex's fortunes have been joined at the hip with the U.S. dollar. When the greenback is roaring, investors pile into media shares and vice versa. While media outlets do have international sales exposure, it is small and significantly trails the overall market's foreign revenue exposure. Thus, the mostly domestic nature of media stocks explains the positive correlation with the U.S. dollar (Chart 17). This multi-decade relationship remains in place, and given the sizable losses in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since the December 2016 peak, the relative share price ratio will remain under intense pressure. On the operating front, shifting consumer spending trends are weighing on relative performance. The top panel of Chart 18 shows that relative media outlays have been in a free fall. Millennials, currently the largest U.S. age cohort, have been "cord cutting" and preferring competitive "on demand" services, largely explaining the near collapse in media spending. Chart 17Joined At The Hip Chart 18Bearish Operating Metrics As a result, industry pricing power is under attack with relative sales and profit expectations steadily sinking (middle & bottom panels, Chart 18). Nevertheless, media barons have awakened to the threats engulfing this industry and are scrambling to fight back. The knee-jerk reaction in the movies & entertainment subindustry has been to seek intra-industry buyout candidates (Chart 19). Inter-industry M&A is also ongoing with the AT&T/Time Warner and Justice Department trial still pending, the tie-up between Disney and Fox and the competitive bids for Sky plc from Fox and Comcast. However, media consolidation is not a sustainable way forward for profit growth. Organic EPS growth remains anemic and the visible breakdown in the correlation between consumer confidence and relative share prices since early 2016 represents a yellow flag (top panel, Chart 20). Chart 19M&A Nearly Exhausted Chart 20Unnerving Breakdown In Correlations Similar to consumer confidence, the ISM non-manufacturing composite is also probing cycle highs, however, industry spending is now outright contracting and steeply diverging from the upbeat ISM services survey. Tack on rising gasoline prices and the news is grim for S&P movies & entertainment profitability (Chart 20). These bleak spending patterns are not isolated in the S&P movies and entertainment index, they have also infiltrated the S&P cable & satellite media sub-index. Chart 21 shows that relative consumer outlays on cable services have taken a plunge, warning that relative share prices will likely suffer the same fate in the coming quarters. Even extremely resilient cable TV pricing power is losing its luster on the back of shrinking industry demand, as cable price hikes can no longer keep up with overall inflation (bottom panel, Chart 21). The implication is that sales are at risk of further steep deceleration. Given that cable providers have to continually upgrade their networks in order to keep up with ever increasing bandwidth demand, tightening margins will eventually translate into cash flow compression (Chart 22). Chart 21Demand And Prices Are Deflating Chart 22Margin Trouble Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P movies & entertainment and S&P cable and satellite indexes to underweight. This also pushes our exposure to the broad S&P consumer discretionary sector to the underweight column. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P movies & entertainment and S&P cable and satellite indexes, are BLBG: S5MOVI - DIS, TWX, FOXA, FOX, VIAB and BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH, respectively. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight, "Buy The Dip," dated February 8, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?locations=US 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Internet Retail: Dialed Up," dated February 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Dear Client, Following up on last week's report, my colleagues Caroline Miller, Mathieu Savary, and I held a webcast on Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent events. If you haven't already, I hope you find the time to listen in. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Protectionism is popular with the American public in general, and Trump's base specifically. The sabre-rattling will persist, but an all-out trade war is unlikely. Trump is focused on the stock market, and equities would suffer mightily if a trade war broke out. The Pentagon has also warned of the dangers of across-the-board tariffs that penalize America's military allies. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. That's not the case today. The equity bull market will eventually end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Feature Q: What prompted Trump's announcement? A: Last week began with President Trump proclaiming that he would seek re-election in 2020. Then came a slew of negative news, including the resignation of Hope Hicks, Trump's White House communications director, and the downgrading of Jared Kushner's security clearance. All this happened against the backdrop of the ever-widening Mueller probe. Trump needed to change the subject. Fast. However, it would be a mistake to think that the tariff announcement was simply a distractionary tactic. Turmoil in the White House might have been the immediate trigger, but events had been building towards this outcome for some time. The Trump administration had imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January. Hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum - two industries that had suffered heavy job losses over the past two decades - was a logical next step. In fact, the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum were similar to the 24% and 7.7% tariff rates, respectively, that the Commerce Department proposed as one of three options on February 16th.1 Protectionism is popular with the American public. This is especially true for Trump's base (Chart 1). Indeed, it is safe to say that Trump's unorthodox views on trade are what handed him the Republican nomination and what allowed him to win key swing (and manufacturing) states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made a promise to his voters. He is trying to keep it. Q: Wouldn't raising trade barriers hurt the U.S. economy, thereby harming the same workers Trump is trying to help? A: That's the line coming from the financial press and most of the political establishment, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. An all-out trade war would undoubtedly hurt the U.S., but a minor skirmish probably would not. The U.S. does run a large trade deficit. Economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney recently estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the U.S. economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation.2 This accords with other studies, such as the one by David Autor and his colleagues, which found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 2).3 Chart 1Trump Is Catering ##br##To His Protectionist Base Chart 2China's Ascent Has Reduced##br## U.S. Manufacturing Employment Granted, China does not even make it into the top ten list of countries that export steel to the United States. But that is somewhat beside the point. As with most commodities, there is a fairly well-integrated global market for steel. Due to its proximity to Asian markets, China exports most of its steel to the rest of the region (Chart 3). That does not stop Chinese overcapacity from dragging down prices around the world. Chart 3Most Of China's Steel Exports Don't Travel That Far Q: Wouldn't steel and aluminum tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers, thereby reducing real wages? A: That depends. If Trump's gambit reduces the U.S. trade deficit, this will increase domestic spending, putting more upward pressure on wages. As far as prices are concerned, the U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and an additional $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. And even that would be a one-off hit to the price level, rather than a permanent increase in the inflation rate. In practice, it is doubtful that prices would rise by the full amount of the tariff (if they did, what would be the purpose of retaliatory measures?). Most econometric studies suggest that producers will absorb about half of the tariff in the form of lower profit margins. To the extent that this reduces the pre-tariff price of imported goods, it would shift the terms of trade in America's favor. Chart 4Does Trade Retaliation Make Sense ##br## When Most Trade Is In Intermediate Goods? There is an old economic theory, first elucidated by Robert Torrens in the 19th century, which says that the optimal tariff is always positive for countries such as the U.S. that are price-makers rather than price-takers in international markets. Put more formally, Torrens showed that an increase in tariffs from very low levels was likely to raise government revenue and producer surplus by more than the loss in consumer surplus. So, in theory, the U.S. could actually benefit at the expense of the rest of the world by imposing higher tariffs.4 Q: This assumes that there is no trade retaliation. How realistic is that? A: That's the key. As noted above, a breakdown of the global trading system would hurt the U.S., but a trade spat could help it. Trump was trying to scare the opposition by tweeting "trade wars are good, and easy to win." In a game of chicken, it helps to convince your opponent that you are reckless and nuts. Trump's detractors would say he is both, so that works in his favor. Trump has another thing working for him. Most trade these days is in intermediate goods (Chart 4). It does not pay for Mexico to slap tariffs on imported U.S. intermediate goods when those very same goods are assembled into final goods in Mexico - creating jobs for Mexican workers in the process - and re-exported to the U.S. or the rest of the world. The same is true for China and many other countries. This does not preclude the imposition of targeted retaliatory tariffs. The EU has threatened to raise tariffs on Levi's jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles (whose headquarters, not coincidently, is located in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district). We would not be surprised if high-end foreign-owned golf courses were also subject to additional scrutiny! But if this is all that happens, markets won't care. The fact that the United States imports much more than it exports also gives Trump a lot of leverage. Take the case of China. Chinese imports of goods and services are 2.65% of U.S. GDP, but exports to China are only 0.96% of GDP. And nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China are agricultural products and raw materials (Chart 5). Taxing them would be difficult without raising Chinese consumer prices. Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose less from a trade war than most other countries. Chart 5China Stands To Lose More From A Trade War With The U.S. Q: Couldn't China and other countries punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys? A: They could, but why would they? Such an action would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart, strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. Chart 6Slowing Global Growth Is Bullish##br## For The Dollar Q: So the dollar could strengthen as a result of rising protectionism? A: Yes, it could. This is a point that even Mario Draghi made at yesterday's ECB press conference. If higher tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit, this will increase U.S. aggregate demand. The boost to demand would be amplified if more companies decide to relocate production back to the U.S. for fear of being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market. The U.S. economy is now operating close to full employment. Anything that adds to demand is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. That could lead to a stronger greenback. Considering that the U.S. is a fairly closed economy which runs a trade deficit, it would suffer less than other economies in the event of a trade war. A scenario where global growth slows because of rising trade tensions, while the composition of that growth shifts towards the U.S., would be bullish for the dollar (Chart 6). Q: What are the implications for stocks and bonds? A: Wall Street will dictate what happens to stocks, but Main Street will dictate what happens to bonds. The stock market hates protectionism, so it is no surprise that equities sold off last week. It is this fact that ultimately got Trump to soften his position. Trump is used to taking credit for a rising stock market. If stocks flounder, this could make him think twice about pushing for higher trade barriers. As far as bonds are concerned, they will react to whatever happens to growth and inflation. As noted above, a trade skirmish could actually boost growth and inflation. Given that the economy is near full capacity, the latter is likely to rise more than the former. This, too, could cause Trump to cool his heels. After all, if higher inflation pushes up bond yields, this will hurt highly-levered sectors such as, you guessed it, real estate. Q: In conclusion, where do you see things going from here? A: Trade frictions will continue. As my colleague Marko Papic highlighted in a report published earlier this week, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain on the ropes for some time.5 The Trump administration is also investigating allegations of Chinese IP theft. The U.S. is a major exporter of intellectual property, but these exports would be much larger if U.S. companies were properly compensated for their ingenuity. Chinese imports of U.S. intellectual property were less than 0.1% of Chinese GDP in 2017, an implausibly small number (Chart 7). If China is found to have acted unfairly, this could lead the U.S. to impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on inbound foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, as noted above, worries about a plunging stock market will constrain Trump from acting too aggressively. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. Today, firms are struggling to find qualified staff (Chart 8). This suggest that Trump will stick to doing what he does best, which is taking credit for everything good that happens under the sun. Chart 7China Is Importing More IP From The U.S., ##br##But The "True" Number Is Probably Higher Chart 8Protectionism Makes Less Sense ##br##When The Labor Market Is Strong Ironically, the latest trade skirmish is occurring at a time when the Chinese government is taking concerted steps to reduce excess capacity in the steel sector, and the profits of U.S. steel producers are rebounding smartly (Chart 9). In fact, the latest Fed Beige Book released earlier this week highlighted that "steel producers reported raising selling prices because of a decline in market share for foreign steel ..."6 Chart 9Chinese Steel Exports Falling, U.S. Steel Profits Rising Meanwile, German automakers already produce nearly 900,000 vehicles in the U.S., 62% of which are exported. In fact, European automakers have a smaller share of the U.S. market than U.S. automakers have of the European one.7 A lot of what Trump wants he already has. The Pentagon has also warned that trade barriers imposed against Canada and other U.S. military allies could undermine America's standing abroad. This is an important point, considering that Trump invoked the rarely used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the President broad control over trade policy in matters of national security, to justify raising tariffs. Trump tends to listen to his generals, if not his other advisors. He probably was not expecting their reaction. All this suggests that a major trade war is unlikely to occur. As we go to press, it appears that the White House will temporarily exclude Canada and Mexico from the list of countries subject to tariffs. We suspect that the EU, Australia, South Korea, and a number of other economies will get some relief as well. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has also said that some "exemptions" may be granted for specific categories of steel and aluminum products that are deemed necessary to U.S. businesses. That is a potentially very broad basket. The bottom line is that the equity bull market will end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances met with restrictive monetary policy, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House," U.S. Department of Commerce, February 16, 2018. 2 Katharine G. Abraham, and Kearney, Melissa S., "Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 24333, (February 2018). 3 David H. Autor, Dorn, David and Hanson, Gordon H., "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 4 A graphical illustration of this point is provided here. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018. 6 Please see "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve District,"Federal Reserve, dated March 7, 2018. 7 Please see Erik F. Nielsen, "Chief Economist's Comment: Sunday Wrap," UniCredit Research, dated March 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades