Inflation/Deflation

Highlights Economic Outlook: The global economy is in a reflationary window that will stay open until mid-2018. Growth will then slow, culminating in a recession in 2019. While the recession is likely to be mild, the policy response will be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation beginning in the early 2020s. Overall Strategy: Investors should overweight equities and high-yield credit during the next 12 months, while underweighting safe-haven government bonds and cash. However, be prepared to scale back risk next spring. Fixed Income: For now, stay underweight U.S. Treasurys within a global fixed-income portfolio; remain neutral on the euro area and the U.K.; and overweight Japan. Bonds will rally in the second half of 2018 as growth begins to slow, but then begin a protracted bear market. Equities: Favor higher-beta developed markets such as Europe and Japan relative to the U.S. in local-currency terms over the next 12 months. Emerging markets will benefit from the reflationary tailwind, but deep structural problems will drag down returns. Currencies: The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% before peaking in mid-2018. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar. The euro will grind lower, as will the Chinese yuan. The pound is close to a bottom. Commodities: Favor energy over metals. Gold will move higher once the dollar peaks in the middle of next year. Feature Reflation, Recession, And Then Stagflation The investment outlook over the next five years can be best described as a three-act play: First Act: "Reflation" (The present until mid-2018) Second Act: "Recession" (2019) Third Act: "Stagflation" (2021 onwards) Investors who remain a few steps ahead of the herd will prosper. All others will struggle to stay afloat. Let us lift the curtain and begin the play. Act 1: Reflation Reflation Continues If there is one chart that best encapsulates the reflation theme, Chart 1 is it. It shows the sum of the Citibank global economic and inflation surprise indices. The combined series currently stands at the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey. Consistent with the surprise indices, Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI) has risen to the strongest level in three years. The 3-month average for developed markets stands at a 6-year high (Chart 2). Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Current Activity Indicators Have Perked Up What accounts for the acceleration in economic growth that began in earnest in mid-2016? A number of factors stand out: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment finally ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7% off the level of U.S. real GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 3). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus. The era of fiscal austerity ended. Chart 4 shows that the fiscal thrust in developed economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time since 2010. Financial conditions eased in most economies, delivering an impulse to growth that is still being felt. In the U.S., for example, junk bond yields dropped from a peak of 10.2% in February 2016 to 6.3% at present (Chart 5). A surging stock market and rising home prices also helped buoy consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 4The End Of Fiscal Austerity? Chart 5Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Fine For Now... Looking out, global growth should stay reasonably firm over the next 12 months. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 6). The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 7 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will remain sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Chart 6Global Growth Will Stay Strong In The Near Term Chart 7Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity ... But Storm Clouds Are Forming Home prices cannot rise faster than rents or incomes indefinitely; nor can equity prices rise faster than earnings. Corporate spreads also cannot keep falling. As the equity and housing markets cool, and borrowing costs start climbing on the back of higher government bond yields, the tailwind from easier financial conditions will dissipate. When that happens - most likely, sometime next year - GDP growth will slow. In and of itself, somewhat weaker growth would not be much of a problem. After all, the economy is currently expanding at an above-trend pace and the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions to some extent - it would not be raising rates if it didn't! The problem is that trend growth is much lower now than in the past - only 1.8% according to the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections. Living in a world of slow trend growth could prove to be challenging. The U.S. corporate sector has been feasting on credit for the past four years (Chart 8). Household balance sheets are still in reasonably good shape, but even here, there are areas of concern. Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 9). Together, these two categories account for over two-thirds of non-housing related consumer liabilities. Chart 8U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 9U.S. Household Balance Sheets Are In Good Shape, But Auto And Student Loans Are A Potential Problem The risk is that defaults will rise if GDP growth falls below 2%, a pace that has often been described as "stall speed." This could set in motion a vicious cycle where slower growth causes firms to pare back debt, leading to even slower growth and greater pressure on corporate balance sheets - in other words, a recipe for recession. Act 2: Recession Redefining "Tight Money" "Expansions do not die of old age," Rudi Dornbusch once remarked, "They are killed by the Fed." On the face of it, this may not seem like much of a concern. If the Fed raises rates in line with the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, the funds rate will only be about 2.5% by mid-2019 (Chart 10). That may not sound like much, but keep in mind that the so-called neutral rate - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - may be a lot lower now than in the past. Also keep in mind that it can take up to 18 months before the impact of tighter financial conditions take their full effect on the economy. Thus, by the time the Fed has realized that it has tightened monetary policy by too much, it may be too late. As we have argued in the past, a variety of forces have pushed down the neutral rate over time.1 For example, the amount of investment that firms need to undertake in a slow-growing economy has fallen by nearly 2% of GDP since the late-1990s (Chart 11). And getting firms to take on even this meager amount of investment may require a lower interest rate since modern production techniques rely more on human capital than physical capital. Chart 10Will The Fed's 'Gradual' Rate Hikes End Up Being Too Much? Chart 11Less Investment Required Rising inequality has also reduced aggregate demand by shifting income towards households with high marginal propensities to save (Chart 12). This has forced central banks to lower interest rates in order to prop up spending. From this perspective, it is not too surprising that income inequality and debt levels have been positively correlated over time (Chart 13). Chart 12Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Chart 13U.S.: Positive Correlation Between Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Then there is the issue of the dollar. The broad real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 19% since mid-2014 (Chart 14). According to the New York Fed's trade model, this has reduced the level of real GDP by nearly 2% relative to what it would have otherwise been. Standard "Taylor Rule" equations suggest that interest rates would need to fall by around 1%-to-2% in order to offset a loss of demand of this magnitude. This means that if the economy could withstand interest rates of 4% when the dollar was cheap, it can only withstand interest rates of 2%-to-3% today. And even that may be too high. Consider the message from Chart 15. It shows that real rates have been trending lower since 1980. The real funds rate averaged only 1% during the 2001-2007 business cycle, a period when demand was being buoyed by a massive, debt-fueled housing bubble; fiscal stimulus in the form of the two Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a weakening dollar; and by a very benign global backdrop where emerging markets were recovering and Europe was doing well. Chart 14The Dollar Is In The Midst Of Its Third Great Bull Market Chart 15The Neutral Rate Has Fallen Today, the external backdrop is fragile, the dollar has been strengthening rather than weakening, and households have become more frugal (Chart 16). And while President Trump has promised plenty of fiscal largess, the reality may turn out to be a lot more sobering than the rhetoric. Chart 16Return To Thrift End Of The Trump Trade? Not Yet The failure to replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt in the eyes of many observers about the ability of Congress to pass other parts of Trump's agenda. As a consequence, the "Trump Trade" has gone into reverse over the past few weeks, pushing down the dollar and Treasury yields in the process. We agree that the "Trump Trade" will eventually fizzle out. However, this is likely to be more of a story for 2018 than this year. If anything, last week's fiasco may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly The GOP's proposed legislation would have reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. That would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. The failure to pass an Obamacare replacement serves as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy Where the disappointment will appear is not during the legislative process, but afterwards. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from corporate tax cuts are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the corporate tax cuts may simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 17From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Chart 18Euro Area Credit Impulse Will Fade In The Second Half Of 2018 Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 17). As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and lavish fiscal stimulus only to get neither. Euro Area: A 12-Month Window For Growth The outlook for the euro area over the next 12 months is reasonably bright, but just as in the U.S., the picture could darken later next year. Euro area private sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year. This may not sound like a lot, but that is the fastest pace of growth since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that drives GDP growth. Thus, as credit growth levels off next year, the euro area's credit impulse will fall back towards zero, setting the stage for a period of slower GDP growth (Chart 18). In contrast to the U.S., the ECB is likely to resist the urge to raise the repo rate before growth slows. That's the good news. The bad news is that the market could price in some tightening in monetary policy anyway, leading to a "bund tantrum" later this year. As in the past, the ECB will be able to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, what Draghi cannot do much about is the low level of the neutral rate in the euro area. If the neutral rate is low in the U.S., it is probably even lower in the euro area, reflecting the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. Chart 19Anti-Euro Sentiment Is High In Italy Indeed, it is entirely possible that the neutral rate is negative in the euro area, even in nominal terms. If that's the case, the ECB will find it difficult to keep inflation from falling once the economy begins to slow late next year. The U.K.: And Now The Hard Part The U.K. fared better than most pundits expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the Brexit vote has not cast a pall over the economy. The pound has depreciated by 11% against the euro and 16% against the dollar since that fateful day, while gilt yields have fallen across the board. Had it not been for this easing in financial conditions, the economic outcome would have been far worse. As the tailwind from the pound's devaluation begins to recede next year, the U.K. economy could suffer. Slower growth in continental Europe and the rest of the world could also exacerbate matters. The severity of the slowdown will hinge on the outcome of Brexit negotiations. On the one hand, the EU has an interest in taking a hardline stance to discourage separatist forces elsewhere, particularly in Italy where pro-euro sentiment is tumbling (Chart 19). On the other hand, the EU still needs the U.K. as both a trade partner and a geopolitical ally. Investors may therefore be surprised by the relatively muted negotiations that transpire over the coming months. In fact, news reports indicate that Brussels has already offered the U.K. a three year transitional deal that will give London plenty of time to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU. In addition, the EU has dangled the carrot of revocability, suggesting that the U.K. would be welcomed back with open arms if enough British voters were to change their minds. Whatever the path, our geopolitical service believes that political risk actually bottomed with the January 17 Theresa May speech.2 If that turns out to be the case, the pound is unlikely to weaken much from current levels. China And EM: The Calm Before The Storm? The Chinese economy should continue to perform well over the coming months. The Purchasing Manager Index for manufacturing remains in expansionary territory and BCA's China Leading Economic Indicator is in a clear uptrend (Charts 20 and 21). Chart 20Bright Spots In The Chinese Economy Chart 21Improving LEI Points To Further Growth Acceleration Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators, with growth rates matching levels last seen during the boom years before the global financial crisis. Historically, construction machinery sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 22). Reflecting this reflationary trend, the producer price index rose by nearly 8% year-over-year in February, a 14-point swing from the decline of 6% experienced in late-2015. Historically, rising producer prices have resulted in higher corporate profits and increased capital expenditures, especially among private enterprises (Chart 23). Chart 22An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 23Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits The key question is how long the good news will last. As in the rest of the world, our guess is that the Chinese economy will slow late next year, setting the stage for a major growth disappointment in 2019. Weaker growth abroad will be partly to blame, but domestic factors will also play a role. The Chinese housing market has been on a tear. The authorities are increasingly worried about a property bubble and have begun to tighten the screws on the sector. The full effect of these measures should become apparent sometime next year. Fiscal policy is also likely to be tightened at the margin. The IMF estimates that China benefited from a positive fiscal thrust of 2.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2016. The fiscal thrust is likely to be close to zero in 2017 and turn negative to the tune of nearly 1% of GDP in 2018 and 2019. The growth outlook for other emerging markets is likely to mirror China's. The IMF expects real GDP in emerging and developing economies to rise by 5.1% in Q4 of 2017 relative to the same quarter a year earlier, up from 4.2% in 2016 (Table 2). The biggest acceleration is expected to occur in Brazil, where the economy is projected to grow by 1.4% in 2017 after having contracted by 1.9% in 2016. Russia and India should also see better growth numbers. Table 2World Economic Outlook: Global Growth Projections We do not see any major reason to challenge these numbers for this year, but think the IMF's projections will turn out to be too rosy for 2018, and especially, 2019. As BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service has documented, the lack of structural reforms in EMs over the past few years has depressed productivity growth. High debt levels also cloud the picture. Chart 24 shows that debt levels have continued to grow as a share of GDP in most emerging markets. In EMs such as China, where banks benefit from a fiscal backstop, the likelihood of a financial crisis is low. In others such as Brazil, where government finances are in precarious shape, the chances of another major crisis remains uncomfortable high. Japan: The End Of Deflation? If there is one thing investors are certain about it is that deflationary forces in Japan are here to stay. Despite a modest increase in inflation expectations since July 2016, CPI swaps are still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next two decades, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan's 2% target. But could the market be wrong? We think so. Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 25). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. Over the past quarter century, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at only 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 26). Chart 24What EM Deleveraging? Chart 25Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 26Japan: Low Household Saving Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seems to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous cycle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Unfortunately, external events could conspire to sabotage Japan's escape from deflation. If the global economy slows in late-2018 - leading to a recession in 2019 - Japan will be hard hit, given the highly cyclical nature of its economy. And this could cause Japanese policymakers to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at the problem, including doing something that they have so far resisted: introducing a "helicopter money" financed fiscal stimulus program. Against the backdrop of weak potential GDP growth and a shrinking reservoir of domestic savings, the government may get a lot more inflation than it bargained for. Act 3: Stagflation Who Remembers The 70s Anymore? By historical standards, the 2019 recession will be a mild one for most countries, especially in the developed world. This is simply because the excesses that preceded the subprime crisis in 2007 and, to a lesser extent the tech bust in 2000, are likely to be less severe going into the next global downturn than they were back then. The policy response may turn out to be anything but mild, however. Memories of the Great Recession are still very much vivid in most peoples' minds. No one wants to live through that again. In contrast, memories of the inflationary 1970s are fading. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a big role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.3 Those who experienced stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in their diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through more dovish eyes than their predecessors. Even if one takes the generational mix out of the equation, there are good reasons to aim for higher inflation in today's environment. For one thing, debt is high. The simplest way to reduce real debt burdens is by letting inflation accelerate. In addition, the zero bound is less likely to be a problem if inflation were higher. After all, if inflation were running at 1% going into a recession, real rates would not be able to fall much below -1%. But if inflation were running at 3%, real rates could fall to as low as -3%. The Politics Of Inflation Political developments will also facilitate the transition to higher inflation. In the U.S., the presidential election campaign will start coming into focus in 2019. If the economy enters a recession then, Donald Trump will go ballistic. The infrastructure program that Republicans in Congress are downplaying now will be greatly expanded. Gold-plated hotels and casinos will be built across the country. Of course, several years could pass between when an infrastructure bill is passed and when most new projects break ground. By that time, the economy will already be recovering. This will help fuel inflation. As the economy turns down in 2019, the Fed will also be forced to play ball. The market's current obsession over whether President Trump wants a "dove" or a "hawk" as Fed chair misses the point. He wants neither. He wants someone who will do what they are told. This means that the next Fed chair will likely be a "really smart" business executive with little-to-no-experience in central banking and even less interest in maintaining the Federal Reserve's institutional independence. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries that lack independent central banks (Chart 27). This may be the fate of the U.S. Chart 27Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Europe's Populists: Down But Not Out Whether something similar happens in Europe will also depend on political developments. For the next 18 months at least, the populists will be held at bay (Chart 28). Le Pen currently trails Macron by 24 percentage points in a head-to-head contest. It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. In Germany, support for the europhile Social Democratic Party is soaring, as is support for the common currency itself. For the time being, euro area risk assets will be able to climb the proverbial political "wall of worry." However, if the European economy turns down in 2019, all this may change. Chart 29 shows the strong correlation between unemployment rates in various French départements and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Should French unemployment rise, her support will rise as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 28France And Germany: Populists Held At Bay For Now Chart 29Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen Meanwhile, there is a high probability that the migrant crisis will intensify at some point over the next few years. Several large states neighboring Europe are barely holding together - Egypt being a prime example - and could erupt at any time. Furthermore, demographic trends in Africa portend that the supply of migrants will only increase. In 2005, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2015 revision, the UN doubled its estimate to 4 billion. And even that may be too conservative because it assumes that the average number of births per woman falls from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period (Chart 30). Chart 30Population Pressures In Africa The existing European political order is not well equipped to deal with large-scale migration, as the hapless reaction to the Syrian refugee crisis demonstrates. This implies that an increasing share of the public may seek out a "new order" that is more attuned to their preferences. European history is fraught with regime shifts, and we may see yet another one in the 2020s. The eventual success of anti-establishment politicians on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that open border immigration policies and free trade - the two central features of globalization - will come under attack. Consequently, an inherently deflationary force, globalization, will give way to an inherently inflationary one: populism. The Productivity Curse Just as the "flation" part of stagflation will become more noticeable as the global economy emerges from the 2019 recession, so will the "stag." Chart 31 shows that productivity growth has fallen across almost all countries and regions. There is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.4 Cyclical factors have played some role. Weak investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock. This means that today's workers have not benefited from the same improvement in the quality and quantity of capital as they did in previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. Most prominently, the gains from the IT revolution have leveled off. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than on businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. Human capital accumulation has also decelerated, dragging productivity growth down with it. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 32). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 33).5 Given that test scores are extremely low in most countries with rapidly growing populations, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart 31Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies Chart 32The Contribution To Growth From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 33Math Skills Around The World Productivity And Inflation The slowdown in potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset, but becomes inflationary later on (Chart 34). Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also curtails consumption, as households react to the prospect of smaller real wage gains. Chart 34A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation.6 One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a decade during which productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Financial Markets Overall Strategy Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors with a 12-month horizon should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. Global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months, followed by a gradual recovery that sees the restoration of full employment in most countries by 2021. At that point, inflation will take off, rising to over 4% by the middle of the decade. The 2020s will be remembered as a decade of intense pain for bond investors. In relative terms, equities will fare better than bonds, but in absolute terms they will struggle to generate a positive real return. As in the 1970s, gold will be the standout winner. Chart 35 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 35Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Equities Cyclically Favor The Euro Area And Japan Over The U.S. Stronger global growth is powering an acceleration in corporate earnings. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 36 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. We prefer euro area and Japanese stocks relative to U.S. equities over a 12-month horizon. We would only buy Japanese stocks on a currency-hedged basis, as the prospect of a weaker yen is the main reason for being overweight Japan. In contrast, we would still buy euro area equities on a U.S. dollar basis, even though our central forecast is for the euro to weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months. Our cyclically bullish view on euro area equities reflects several considerations. For starters, they are cheap. Euro area stocks currently trade at a Shiller PE ratio of only 17, compared with 29 for the U.S. (Chart 37). Some of this valuation gap can be explained by different sector weights across the two regions. However, even if one controls for this factor, as well as the fact that euro area stocks have historically traded at a discount to the U.S., the euro area still comes out as being roughly one standard deviation cheap compared with the U.S. (Chart 38). Chart 36Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Chart 37Euro Area Stocks Are A Bargain... Chart 38...No Matter How You Look At It European Banks Are In A Cyclical Sweet Spot Of course, if euro area banks flounder over the next 12 months as they have for much of the past decade, none of this will matter. However, we think that the region's banks have finally turned the corner. The ECB is slowly unwinding its emergency measures and core European bond yields have risen since last summer. This has led to a steeper yield curve, helping to flatter net interest margins. Chart 39 shows that the relative performance of European banks is almost perfectly correlated with the level of German bund yields. Our European Corporate Health Monitor remains in improving territory, in contrast to the U.S., where it has been deteriorating since 2013 (Chart 40). Profit margins in Europe have room to expand, whereas in the U.S. they have already maxed out. The capital positions of European banks have also improved greatly since the euro crisis. Not all banks are out of the woods, but with nonperforming loans trending lower, the need for costly equity dilution has dissipated (Chart 41). Meanwhile, euro area credit growth is accelerating and loan demand continues to expand. Chart 39Performance Of European Banks And Bond Yields: A Good Fit Chart 40Corporations Healthier In The Euro Area Chart 41Cyclical Background Positive For Bank Stocks Beyond a 12-month horizon, the outlook for euro area banks and the broader stock market look less enticing. The region will suffer along with the rest of the world in 2019. The eventual triumph of populist governments could even lead to the dissolution of the common currency. This means that euro area stocks should be rented, not owned. The same goes for U.K. equities. EM: Uphill Climb Emerging market equities tend to perform well when global growth is strong. Thus, it would not be surprising if EM equities continue to march higher over the next 12 months. However, the structural problems plaguing emerging markets that we discussed earlier in this report will continue to cast a pall over the sector. Our EM strategists favor China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Russia. They are neutral on Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa; and are underweight Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and Turkey. Fixed Income Global Bond Yields To Rise Further We put out a note on July 5th entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" recommending that clients go structurally underweight safe-haven government bonds.7 As luck would have it, we penned this report on the very same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We continue to think that asset allocators should maintain an underweight position in global bonds over the next 12 months. In relative terms, we favor Japan over the U.S. and have a neutral recommendation on the euro area and the U.K. Chart 42The Market Expects 50 Basis Points Of Tightening Over The Next 12 Months Underweight The U.S. For Now We expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to rise to around 3.2% over the next 12 months. The Fed is likely to raise rates by a further 100 basis points over this period, about 50 bps more than the 12-month discounter is currently pricing in (Chart 42). In addition, the Fed will announce later this year or in early 2018 that it will allow the assets on its balance sheet to run off as they mature. This could push up the term premium, giving long Treasury yields a further boost. Thus, for now, investors should underweight Treasurys on a currency-hedged basis within a fixed-income portfolio. The cyclical peak for both Treasury yields and the dollar should occur in mid-2018. Slowing growth in the second half of that year and a recession in 2019 will push the 10-year Treasury yield back towards 2%. After that, bond yields will grind higher again, with the pace accelerating in the early 2020s as the stagflationary forces described above gather steam. Neutral On Europe, Overweight Japan Yields in the euro area will follow the general contours of the U.S., but with several important qualifications. The ECB is likely to roll back some of its emergency measures over the next 12 months, including suspending the Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, or TLTROs. It could also raise the deposit rate slightly, which is currently stuck in negative territory. However, in contrast to the Fed, the ECB is unlikely to hike its key policy rate, the repo rate. And while the ECB will "taper" asset purchases, it will not take any steps to shrink the size of its balance sheet. As such, fixed-income investors should maintain a benchmark allocation to euro area bonds. Chart 43A Bit More Juice Left A benchmark weighting to gilts is also warranted. With the Brexit negotiations hanging in the air, it is doubtful that the Bank of England would want to hike rates anytime soon. On the flipside, rising inflation - though largely a function of a weak currency - will make it difficult for the BoE to increase asset purchases or take other steps to ease monetary policy. We would recommend a currency-hedged overweight position in JGBs. The Bank of Japan is committed to keeping the 10-year yield pinned to zero. Given that neither actual inflation nor inflation expectations are anywhere close to that level, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ will jettison its yield-targeting regime anytime soon. With government bond yields elsewhere likely to grind higher, this makes JGBs the winner by default. High-Yield Credit: Still A Bit Of Juice Left The fact that the world's most attractive government bond market by our rankings - Japan - is offering a yield of zero speaks volumes. As long as global growth stays strong and corporate default risk remains subdued, investors will maintain their love affair with high-yield credit. Thus, while credit spreads have fallen dramatically, they could still fall further (Chart 43). Only when corporate stress begins to boil over in late 2018 will things change. Nevertheless, investors will continue to face headwinds from rising risk-free yields in most economies even in the near term. This implies that the return from junk bonds in absolute terms will fall short of what is delivered by equities over the next 12 months. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44Real Rate Differentials Are Driving Up The Dollar Real Rate Differentials Will Support The Greenback We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by about 10% over the next 12 months. Historically, changes in real interest rate differentials have been the dominant driver of currency movements in developed economies. The past few years have been no different. Chart 44 shows that the ascent of the trade-weighted dollar since mid-2014 has been almost perfectly matched by an increase in U.S. real rates relative to those abroad. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners are likely to widen further through to the middle of 2018 as the Fed raises rates more quickly than current market expectations imply, while other central banks continue to stand pat. Accordingly, we would fade the recent dollar weakness. As we discussed in "The Fed's Unhike," the March FOMC statement was not as dovish as it might have appeared at first glance.8 Given that monetary conditions eased in the aftermath of the Fed meeting - exactly the opposite of what the Fed was trying to achieve - it is likely that the FOMC's rhetoric will turn more hawkish in the coming weeks. The Yen Has The Most Downside, The Pound The Least Among the major dollar crosses, we see the most downside for the yen over the next 12 months. The Bank of Japan will continue to keep JGB yields anchored at zero. As yields elsewhere rise, investors will shift their money out of Japan, causing the yen to weaken. Only once the global economy begins to teeter into recession late next year will the yen - traditionally, a "risk off" currency - begin to rebound. The euro will also weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months, although not as much as the yen. The ECB's "months to hike" has plummeted from nearly 60 last summer to 26 today (Chart 45). That seems too extreme. Core inflation in the euro area is well below U.S. levels, even if one adjusts for measurement differences between the two regions (Chart 46). The neutral rate is also lower in the euro area, as discussed previously. This sharply limits the ability of the ECB to raise rates. Chart 45Market's Hawkish View Of The ECB Is Too Extreme Chart 46Core Inflation In The U.S. Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing Unlike most currencies, sterling should be able to hold its ground against the dollar over the next 12 months. The pound is very cheap by most metrics (Chart 47). The prospect of contentious negotiations over Brexit with the EU is already in the price. What may not be in the price is the possibility that the U.K. will move quickly to reach a deal with the EU. If such a deal fails to live up to the promises made by the Brexit campaign - a near certainty in our view - a new referendum may need to be scheduled. A new vote could yield a much different result than the first one. If the market begins to sniff out such an outcome, the pound could strengthen well before the dust settles. EM And Commodity Currencies The RMB will weaken modestly against the dollar over the coming year. As we have discussed in the past, China's high saving rate will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a large current account surplus. This requires a weak currency.9 Nevertheless, a major devaluation of the RMB is not in the cards. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has been driven by an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 48). At this point, most of the hot money has fled the country. This suggests that the pace of capital outflows will subside. Chart 47Pound: Cheap By All Accounts Chart 48Hot Money In, Hot Money Out A somewhat weaker RMB could dampen demand for base and bulk metals. A slowdown in Chinese construction activity next year could also put added pressure on metals prices. Our EM strategists are especially bearish on the South African rand, Brazilian real, Colombian peso, Turkish lira, Malaysian ringgit, and Indonesian rupiah. Crude should outperform metals over the next 12 months. This will benefit the Canadian dollar and other oil-sensitive currencies. However, Canada's housing bubble is getting out of hand and could boil over if domestic borrowing costs climb in line with rising long-term global bond yields. A sagging property sector will limit the ability of the Bank of Canada to raise short-term rates. On balance, we see modest downside for the CAD/USD over the coming year. The Aussie dollar will suffer even more, given the country's own housing excesses and its export sector's high sensitivity to metal prices. Finally, a few words on the most of ancient of all currencies: gold. We do not expect bullion to fare well over the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and rising bond yields are both bad news for the yellow metal. However, once central banks start slashing rates in 2019 and stagflationary forces begin to gather steam in the early 2020s, gold will finally have its day in the sun. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," dated March 13, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?" dated January 25, 2017, and Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Note to economists: We can think of this relationship within the context of the Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. In the standard setup where the saving rate is fixed, slower population and productivity growth will always result in a lower equilibrium real interest rate. However, consider a more realistic setup where: 1) the saving rate rises initially as the population ages, but then begins to decline as a larger share of the workforce enters retirement; and 2) habit persistence affects consumer spending, so that households react to slower real wage growth by saving less rather than cutting back on consumption. In that sort of environment, the neutral rate could initially fall, but then begin to rise. If the central bank reacts slowly to changes in the neutral rate, or monetary policy is otherwise constrained by the zero bound on interest rates and/or political considerations, the initial effect of slower trend GDP growth will be deflationary while the longer-term outcome will be inflationary. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Unhike," dated March 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Renewed deflationary pressures indicate that the Hong Kong dollar may have once again become expensive. The currency peg will stay and domestic prices will adjust as a release valve. Developing deflationary pressures and slowing rent growth may reinforce one other. Rising risk free interest rate calls for higher rental yield, which can only be achieved via lower home prices. Remain short HK government bonds relative to US Treasurys; Remain short HK property investors relative to benchmark. More evidence that China's profit cycle is in an upturn. Feature The election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive this past weekend garnered little coverage among the global mainstream media. Carrie Lam easily beat her competitors, purportedly with blessings from Beijing. However, she will face an uphill battle to reunite the citizens of Hong Kong, who have become increasingly divided in recent years. As a regional financial hub heavily exposed to global forces, local politics barely matter for Hong Kong's economy and financial markets. Nonetheless, the significance of politics has clearly been on an upward trajectory in recent years, which could impact investors' long-term risk perceptions for a market that has historically been largely viewed as an "apolitical" Laissez Faire system. On the economic front, also largely ignored has been Hong Kong's inflation statistics released early last week, which showed that headline consumer price inflation dropped by 0.1% in February, the first negative reading since August 2009. While one single data point certainly does not denote a trend, odds are high that deflationary forces are re-emerging in Hong Kong, with important implications for asset prices, particularly for the currency and local real estate market. Budding Deflation... Chart 1Deflation Is Coming Back The negative February CPI reading was largely attributed to some poverty relief factors, declining vegetable prices and the base effect due to the Chinese New Year holiday. However, headline CPI has been decelerating since the peak of 2011 (Chart 1). Indeed, after briefly dipping below zero at the height of the global financial crisis and then roaring back in the aftermath on improving growth, consumer prices in Hong Kong have been in a prolonged period of disinflation. In fact, February's negative CPI figure is just a continuation of a well-established trend rather than an anomaly caused by one-off factors. Moreover, falling inflation and developing deflation is rather broad-based. It is true that the nosedive in fresh food prices has clearly played a role in dragging down headline CPI. However, price inflation has been trending lower in almost all major components of the consumption basket such as housing, eating out and other miscellaneous services (Chart 1, bottom panel). Meanwhile, consumer durable goods inflation has been stuck in negative territory for more than 10 years. Interestingly, amid strengthening global growth momentum, most major economies have been experiencing bouts of reflation, particularly in sectors associated with commodities prices - intensifying disinflationary/deflationary pressures in Hong Kong are a notable exception. It means that inflation dynamics in Hong Kong are likely rooted in unique domestic factors. ...Indicates An Expensive Hong Kong Dollar In our view, a key factor behind Hong Kong's budding deflationary pressure is the exchange rate. As the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the relative shift in price levels between Hong Kong and the rest of the world cannot be adjusted through a change in the nominal exchange rate. Therefore, the adjustment must be achieved in real terms through price changes. Chart 2 shows that prior to 1983 when the currency board system was established, Hong Kong inflation largely followed that in the U.S., while the exchange rate fluctuated against the dollar. Since the 1983 currency peg, Hong Kong inflation has been swinging around the U.S. level, with the economy alternating between inflationary booms and deflationary busts. A new factor that has also become increasingly important in Hong Kong's inflation dynamics is China's price levels, which also relates to the exchange rate. Chart 3 shows Hong Kong headline inflation has outpaced Chinese inflation since 2013, and the RMB's depreciation against the Hong Kong dollar in recent years has put further downward pressure on local Hong Kong price levels. Chart 2Exchange Rate And Inflation Tango Chart 3Hong Kong Inflation: The China Factor In short, renewed deflationary pressures indicate that the Hong Kong dollar may have once again become expensive, and therefore domestic price levels have begun to adjust as the release valve. It remains to be seen how long the adjustment process will last. From investors' point of view, a few observations are in order: There is little risk that the Hong Kong dollar peg will break, unless it is a voluntary policy choice by the authorities. Hong Kong's solid banking sector is not prone to financial crises, and its massive fiscal and foreign exchange reserves give the government plenty of fire powder to defend the exchange rate in the event of a speculative attack, let alone the mighty official reserves held in mainland China (Chart 4). We remain convinced that Hong Kong's ultra-low interest rates compared with the U.S. are unjustified and unsustainable (Chart 5). Hong Kong 10-year government bond yields are still 84 basis points lower than their U.S. counterparts, which probably reflects upward pressure on the Hong Kong dollar to appreciate against the U.S. dollar, partially driven by Chinese capital outflows. In this vein, budding deflationary pressures in Hong Kong further diminish the odds of an upward move of the HKD against the U.S. dollar. Remain short Hong Kong government bonds against U.S. Treasurys with comparable durations. Historically Hong Kong's flexible and largely Laissez Faire system has been able to stomach drastic swings in domestic price levels induced by the currency peg. The rising grassroots anti-establishment movement in recent years suggests the side effects of the Hong Kong system may have become increasingly unpopular. It will be interesting to see if any deflationary growth downturn in Hong Kong triggers a populist backlash that leads to a change in Hong Kong's exchange rate scheme. Chart 4Ample Resources To Defend HKD Peg Chart 5HK Rates Should Move Higher Real Estate: Sky's The Limit? Another key reason behind Hong Kong's falling CPI inflation is rent, which has also turned sharply lower in recent months (Chart 1, bottom panel). This is in stark contrast to home prices, which have continued to rally strongly. After a temporary pullback last year, Hong Kong real estate prices have roared back to new record highs. Looking forward, the outlook for Hong Kong's real estate sector looks decisively bearish. First, Hong Kong's real estate market has become increasingly detached from economic fundamentals. Home prices have dramatically outpaced household income, in greater proportion than the previous housing bubble peak in the late 1990s (Chart 6). Therefore, it is not surprising that both transactions and construction activity have declined substantially to near-record lows. Thinning transaction activity suggests that ordinary local households may have been priced out, underscoring frothy market conditions. The saving grace is that the dramatic increase in prices has not led to euphoria in housing demand and transactions, which should limit financial sector risk should home prices decline. Second, developing deflationary pressures and slowing rent growth may reinforce one other, potentially creating a downward spiral. Meanwhile, risk-free interest rates, driven by Federal Reserve policy, will likely edge higher. This is an especially poor combination for Hong Kong real estate investors. Historically, higher risk-free yields should lead to higher rental yields (Chart 7). With falling rents, the only way for rental yields to go up is via lower prices. Chart 6Housing Market: Soaring Prices, Falling Volume Chart 7Rental Yield Will Be Pushed Higher From a big-picture vantage point, Hong Kong deflation and Fed tightening will lead to much higher real interest rates in Hong Kong, which amounts to significant tightening in monetary conditions. This will create further headwinds for both the Hong Kong domestic economy and property prices. The bottom line is that the risk in Hong Kong home prices is tilted to the downside. The market may have been boosted by an influx of capital from the mainland, which may sustain the bubble for a while longer. However, investors should not chase the market. Chart 8The Widening Valuation Gap Budding deflationary pressures also bode poorly for profits and equity prices. However, Hong Kong stocks are more heavily exposed to China and the global cycle than local business conditions, and therefore should not be impacted materially. Moreover, Hong Kong stock multiples historically have tracked their U.S. counterparts closely - the valuation gap has widened sharply since 2013 (Chart 8). This should further limit the downside in Hong Kong stocks. Meanwhile, we expect property owners such as REITs to underperform the broader market. A Word On Chinese Profits The latest numbers show Chinese industrial profits jumped by over 30% in the first two months of the year compared with a year ago, a sharp acceleration from recent months, as predicted by our model (Chart 9). The strong profit recovery has important implications. For equity earnings, the upturn in the profit cycle is also confirmed by bottom-up analysts. Net earnings revisions have been lifted, which has historically led to acceleration in forward earnings growth (Chart 10). Remain positive on Chinese H shares. From a macro perspective, rising earnings should lead to stronger investment, especially in the manufacturing and mining sectors. This should further boost domestic demand and prolong the ongoing mini cycle upturn. The profit recovery also helps alleviate financial stress in the banking system, as it will reduce the pace of accumulation of non-performing loans (NPL). Importantly, profits are rising particularly strongly in some of the hardest hit sectors in previous years, such as steelmakers and coal miners, which were precisely where the increase in NPLs were the most rampant. We will follow up on this issue in upcoming reports. Chart 9China's Profit Cycle Upturn Chart 10Chinese Equity Earnings Will Accelerate Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration & Fed Policy: The longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for Treasury yields. Maintain below-benchmark duration on a 6-12 month horizon and add a short fed funds futures trade to profit from increased Fed hawkishness in the near-term. Yield Curve: While the long-run trend will be for the yield curve to flatten as the Fed hiking cycle progresses, rising inflation expectations will cause the curve to steepen between now and the end of the year. Maintain a position long the 5-year bullet, short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell to profit from a steeper curve on a 6-9 month horizon. Feature Say Uncle Chart 1More Tightening To Come The Fed lifted rates last week but kept its median projected path for future rate hikes unchanged. Judging from the market's reaction, this was a more dovish outcome than was anticipated. Since last Wednesday's meeting the dollar is down 0.5%, junk spreads have tightened 10 basis points and the 2/10 yield curve has steepened 1 bp. In other words, financial conditions have continued to ease even as the Fed took another step toward more restrictive policy. All in all, money markets are now discounting only a slightly slower pace of rate hikes than the Fed's median forecast (Chart 1) and financial conditions suggest that further incremental tightening is in store. The financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor1 is above zero, meaning that financial conditions are more accommodative than the long-run average, and the Chicago Fed's Adjusted Financial Conditions Index also shows that conditions are easy relative to the strength of the economy (Chart 1, bottom panel). New York Fed President William Dudley has previously described how the Fed incorporates financial conditions into its decision making:2 Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop All else equal, if financial conditions tighten sharply, then we are likely to proceed more slowly. In contrast, if financial conditions were not to tighten at all or only very little, then - assuming the economic outlook hadn't changed significantly - we would likely have to move more quickly. In the end, we will adjust the policy stance to support financial market conditions that we deem are most consistent with our employment and inflation objectives. We have also described this process in the context of our Fed Policy Loop3 (Chart 2). In essence, the Fed will continue to nudge rate hike expectations higher until financial conditions tighten excessively. At that point - because with inflation below target the Fed still has an interest in supporting the recovery - it will quickly shift to a more dovish stance. Chart 3Short Jan 2018 Fed Funds Futures One implication of the Fed Policy Loop is that the longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for the fed funds rate and Treasury yields. As such, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration allocation on a 6-12 month horizon. Another implication is that because markets shrugged off the latest rate increase, Fed policy is likely to turn more hawkish in the very near term. We therefore recommend investors add a tactical trade: short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 3). We calculate that this trade will return 11 bps in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates twice more before the end of the year and 37 bps in a scenario where the funds rate is raised three times. However, we do not expect to hold this trade until the end of the year. Rather, we expect the Fed will nudge rate expectations higher in the next month or two and that these gains will be realized over a much shorter horizon. We also add a caveat that, in the present environment, it is safer to implement any "hawkish Fed trades" in either fed funds futures or the overnight index swap market. The Eurodollar market does not provide the same potential for gains because the LIBOR / OIS spread is currently elevated and could tighten to offset the profits from rising fed funds rate expectations (Chart 3, bottom panel). Fed hawkishness also argues for a flatter yield curve in the very near term. While this could materialize, we continue to hold our position in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/10 barbell - a trade designed to profit from a steeper 2/10 slope. For reasons described in the next section we believe the yield curve will steepen between now and the end of the year, although the risks are tilted toward flattening in the very near term and in 2018 and beyond. What Drives The Yield Curve? In this week's report we present an overview of the main drivers of the slope of the Treasury yield curve. Specifically, we identify (i) the fed funds rate, (ii) inflation expectations, (iii) implied volatility and (iv) unit labor costs as factors that correlate strongly with the slope of the yield curve on a cyclical horizon. We review the outlook for each of these factors and conclude that the Treasury yield curve has room to steepen between now and the end of the year. Beyond that, the curve will likely resume flattening as inflationary pressures start to bite and the Fed's rate hike cycle picks up steam. Chart 4Fed Rate Hikes Flatten The Curve 1. The Fed Funds Rate Not surprisingly, the slope of the Treasury curve correlates very strongly with the level of short rates (Chart 4). Typically, short-maturity yields are much more influenced by the expected path of Fed rate hikes than long-maturity yields. As such, when the Fed is lifting rates the yield curve tends to bear-flatten - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields rise, but the 2-year rises more quickly. In contrast, when the Fed is cutting rates the yield curve tends to bull-steepen - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields fall, but the 2-year falls more quickly. In a typical cycle the yield curve will start to flatten as the Fed lifts rates and will eventually become completely flat when the end of the rate hike cycle is reached and the fed funds rate is at its "equilibrium" or "terminal" level. Usually, at that point in the cycle, the Fed will keep policy too tight in an effort to rein in inflation. This causes the economy to slow and the yield curve to invert, signaling the start of the next recession. A recent BCA Special Report4 speculates that if the federal government succeeds in delivering sizeable fiscal stimulus, inflationary pressures could start to build next year, leading to a more rapid pace of Fed rate hikes and a flat or inverted yield curve by the end of 2018. This would be consistent with a recession in 2019. In terms of the behavior of the yield curve, this is not far off from the Fed's own projections. At present, the median FOMC projection calls for the fed funds rate to reach its equilibrium level of 3% by the end of 2019. If this forecast plays out, it means that the 2/10 Treasury slope must flatten by roughly 117 bps between now and then. Turning back to Chart 4, we see that the Treasury curve has already flattened considerably even though the Fed has only raised rates three times. This means that either the equilibrium fed funds rate is much lower than the Fed's 3% projection and the 2/10 slope will reach zero with a much lower fed funds rate, or that the curve flattening is overdone and the curve has room to steepen before it resumes its cyclical flattening trend. As is explained below, we favor the latter interpretation. 2. Inflation Expectations The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is also highly correlated with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 5). As long-dated inflation expectations increase the yield curve tends to steepen, and vice-versa. Interestingly, the positive correlation between long-dated inflation expectations and the slope of the Treasury curve persists even when the Fed is hiking rates. Notice that in the 1999 rate hike cycle, the yield curve did not start to flatten until the 5-year/5-year breakeven fell. Also, in the 2004-06 hike cycle, curve flattening ebbed just as the breakeven started to widen. Chart 5Rising TIPS Breakevens Steepen The Curve Charts 6 and 7 show the relationship between the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven in more detail. Chart 6 shows the correlation between monthly changes in the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven using all available data back to January 1999. We see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven prevailed in 64% of monthly observations, while only 36% of months displayed a negative correlation. Chart 62/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven ##br##Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year Forward (February 1999 - Present) Chart 72/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year ##br##Forward During Fed Tightening Cycles (June 1999 To May 2000 & June 2004 To June 2006) In Chart 7, we focus exclusively on the past two Fed tightening cycles (1999-2000 & 2004-2006). Not only does a linear regression show an even stronger correlation than was achieved with the full sample, but we also see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven existed in 73% of monthly observations, while only 27% of months displayed a negative correlation. At present, core PCE inflation is still below the Fed's 2% target and different measures of inflation expectations are all well below levels that prevailed during prior rate hike cycles (Chart 8). In other words, the Fed must proceed slowly enough with rate hikes to ensure that long-dated inflation expectations continue to trend higher, which argues for a steeper yield curve until inflation and inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around the Fed's target. For the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate we think a range of 2.4% to 2.5% would signal that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. 3. Volatility Implied interest rate volatility - as measured by the MOVE volatility index - is another factor that correlates with the yield curve on a cyclical horizon (Chart 9). In theory, higher rate volatility should coincide with a steeper yield curve, all else equal, and this is exactly the correlation we observe. Chart 8Fed Wants Inflation Expectations To Rise Chart 9Higher Vol Steepens The Curve Let's consider that there is a risk premium applied to taking a unit of duration risk (usually called the term premium) and that said risk premium is larger for longer-maturity bonds that carry more duration risk. All else equal, the risk premium applied to one unit of duration risk should be larger when rate volatility is higher. This should also coincide with a steeper yield curve, since there is more duration risk at the long-end of the curve. In a recent report,5 we concluded that the level of disagreement among forecasters about future GDP growth and T-bill rates were the two most important drivers of cyclical swings in implied rate volatility, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has at times also played a role (Chart 9, bottom 3 panels). Chart 10Higher Unit Labor Costs Flatten The Curve At the moment, the amount of forecaster disagreement about future GDP growth is near its lows since 1990 and T-bill forecast disagreement has, until recently, been suppressed by the zero lower bound on interest rates. All this implies that the balance of risks favors higher implied interest rate volatility in the months ahead, which will apply steepening pressure to the yield curve. 4. Unit Labor Costs Unit labor costs are the final yield curve indicator we discuss in this report. Since faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening and slowing wage growth tends to correlate with Fed easing, it makes sense for wage indicators to be inversely correlated with the slope of the yield curve. While it is broadly true that all wage indicators show a reasonable inverse correlation with the slope of the curve, unit labor costs are the best. The reason is that unit labor costs (compensation per unit produced) actually measure both wage growth (compensation per hour) and labor productivity (output per hour) (Chart 10). It turns out that the yield curve can flatten in the traditional way - a bear-flattening driven by rising wages and Fed tightening - but occasionally it can also bull-flatten if the market starts to discount a lower equilibrium (or terminal) fed funds rate. We might expect this sort of curve behavior in an environment of extremely low productivity growth, and this is exactly what has occurred during the past few years. Notice in Chart 10 that compensation per hour does not explain the curve flattening that started in 2014, but unit labor costs do because they also factor in incredibly low productivity growth. In the longer-run, we would strongly expect unit labor costs to remain in an uptrend. Wage growth is accelerating and there are structural headwinds that will prevent productivity growth from returning to the levels seen at the height of the IT revolution in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As was discussed last year in a Special Report from our Global Investment Strategy service,6 the rate of human capital accumulation is in a secular downtrend as is the share of workers in their 40s - the age cohort when people are most productive. However, there has also been a cyclical component to the productivity slowdown and it is possible that productivity growth could accelerate somewhat in the near-term as the cycle matures. The capital stock per worker correlates strongly with productivity growth (Chart 11), and while capital investment has been depressed for most of the recovery there are finally some signs that it may return (Chart 12). Chart 11Productivity Held Back By Lack Of Investment Chart 12Getting Optimistic About Capex In fact, it is even conceivable that more rapid wage growth itself might encourage firms to replace labor with capital, causing traditional measures of wage growth to accelerate relative to unit labor costs. Also, the prospect of tax reform and regulatory relief could give capital spending a boost - it has already led to a jump higher in small business optimism (Chart 12, bottom panel). Unit labor costs will likely continue to accelerate on a cyclical investment horizon, applying flattening pressure to the yield curve. But this flattening pressure would be mitigated to the extent that there is any cyclical rebound in productivity growth. Yield Curve Strategy Upon consideration of the four factors described above, we conclude that while the slope of the yield curve will likely be close to zero sometime in late 2018, curve flattening won't start in earnest until late this year or early next year when inflation expectations are higher (2.4% to 2.5% on long-dated TIPS breakevens) and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around the Fed's 2% target. This conclusion is based on our observations that: TIPS breakevens and the slope of the curve tend to be positively correlated, even during rate hike cycles. Interest rate volatility is more likely to rise than fall. Unit labor costs are likely to remain in an uptrend on a cyclical horizon, but there is scope for them to level-off if we see a modest late-cycle rebound in productivity growth. To position for a steeper yield curve between now and the end of this year we continue to recommend that investors favor the 5-year Treasury note relative to a duration-matched position in a 2-year/10-year barbell. Long bullet/short barbell trades tend to outperform when the yield curve steepens, and our model suggests that the 5-year yield is currently very cheap relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 13). We have been recommending this trade since December 20, 2016 and it has so far returned +2 bps even though the 2/10 slope has flattened 13 bps during that time. The strong positive carry means that not much curve steepening is required for the trade to realize strong positive gains. Chart 13The 5-Year Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on our Fed Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150605 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians", dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, In addition to this brief note concerning Wednesday's FOMC meeting, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Brian Piccioni, head of BCA's Technology Strategy service. Brian discusses the investment implications of what could be one of the most profound technological developments of the 21st century: CRISPR, a radical new technique for genetic engineering. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy The dollar and U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply in the aftermath of Wednesday's FOMC meeting, while equities rallied. Indeed, so pronounced was the asset market reaction that financial conditions eased markedly for the day, making the Fed's actions an "unhike" of sorts. The FOMC meeting produced several dovish surprises. First, the number of participants who expected four rate hikes or more did not increase, as some observers had anticipated. Second, the estimate for the structural rate of unemployment was scaled down further by a tenth of a percentage point to 4.7%. Third, the FOMC statement said that the Fed was looking for a "sustained" return to 2% inflation, while also referring to its inflation target as a "symmetric" one. Fourth, Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari dissented in favor of keeping rates unchanged, which few people had expected. Having said all this, the market's reaction still seems rather excessive. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target. This was reflected in the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. Consistent with this, the FOMC raised its growth forecast for 2018 from 2.0% to 2.1%. In addition, it lifted its inflation forecast for this year from 1.8% to 1.9%. The median projection for the funds rate also edged up from 2.9% to 3% for 2019. The mean dot rose 9 bps in both 2018 and 2019, while the modal dot increased by 25 bps in both years. None of this is particularly dovish. As far as the reference to the Fed's "symmetric" target is concerned, this is something that Chair Yellen and other FOMC officials have stressed many times before. All it means is that the Fed will not react too aggressively if core inflation were to drift somewhat above 2%. It does not mean that the Fed will purposely try to engineer an inflation overshoot. If the Fed had wanted to do that, it would have lifted its 2019 inflation forecast. It didn't do that and the inflation forecast remains stuck at 2.0%. Why, then, did the FOMC bother massaging the language? The answer is that the Fed simply wanted to reassure the public and the investment community that it would maintain its "go slow" approach to raising rates. After all, investors were pricing in only a small probability of a March hike just a few weeks ago. A "hawkish hike" could have led to an excessive tightening in financial conditions, similar to what happened during the taper tantrum. However, given that financial conditions actually eased significantly in response to the FOMC's decision, it is likely that Fed speeches will lean in a less dovish direction over the coming weeks. The implication for investors is that the dollar is likely to rebound. Indeed, the longer-term risk to the dollar is not that the Fed turns out be too dovish, but that it turns out to be too hawkish - that it raises rates so much that the economy begins to roll over. However, with interest rates still low in absolute terms, this is more of a risk for late 2018 or 2019 than it is for the next 12 months. As such, investors should continue to cyclically overweight global equities, favouring stock markets such as those in Europe and Japan that have a "higher beta" to global growth than the U.S. A modest bearish tilt towards long-term government bonds is also warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. In the short term, global bond yields are set to rise further. Risk assets, especially EM ones, are vulnerable on the back of higher bond yields. Thereafter, global bond yields will roll over decisively as inflation worries subside. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Toward the end of this year, growth disappointments in EM/China will resurface and EM risk assets will sell off again. Feature The near-term risks to emerging markets (EM) and global stocks over the next three months or so are potential inflation anxieties in the U.S. and around the world, and a further rise in U.S./global interest rate expectations. Yet looking beyond the short-term, it is not clear that the rise in global inflation will be lasting. Timing zigzags in financial markets is almost impossible. However, if we were to try to speculate on potential swings in financial markets over the next 12 months, our prediction would be that the current growth acceleration will soon lead to heightened inflation worries, and global bond yields will climb further. Having already rallied a lot, global share prices will likely relapse, with EM risk assets being hardest hit on the back of rising U.S. bond yields. Thereafter, there will likely be a period of calm when inflation worries subside due to growth disappointments, and bond yields roll over decisively. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Yet this calm phase might not last too long as EM/China growth will relapse considerably again toward the end of this year. In short, another global growth scare driven by EM/China is likely to transpire later this year. Any potential U.S. trade protectionist measures will play into this scenario - augmenting U.S. inflation expectations initially when adopted and then, when implemented, dampening global growth. Please note that this is the view of BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service, which differs from BCA's house view that is cyclically positive on global stocks/risk assets. Neither the inflation fears/higher interest rates episode nor the growth scare phase that we believe is in the cards later this year are bullish for EM risk assets. Therefore, we maintain that the risk-reward for EM risk assets is extremely unattractive at the current juncture, even if global growth stays firm for now. More Upside In Bond Yields Inflation has been accelerating in the U.S. and China: The average of U.S. trimmed-mean CPI and PCE, median CPI and market-based core CPI inflation has risen above 2% (Chart I-1). The individual components are shown in Chart I-2. Chart I-1U.S. Inflation Measures Are In Uptrend Chart I-2Broad-Based Rise In U.S. Inflation BCA's U.S. wage tracker - a mean of four different wage series - is also accelerating (Chart I-3, top panel), signaling a tightening labor market. Wages are critical to inflation dynamics because not only are wages the largest cost component of a business but also higher wages entail more consumer spending, making it easier for companies to raise prices. That said, what drives cost-push inflation is not wages but unit labor costs. In the U.S., unit labor costs have been rising signaling accumulating pressure on businesses to raise prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). In China, core (ex-food and energy) consumer, retail and trimmed mean consumer inflation are in an uptrend (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Wages And Unit Labor ##br##Costs Argue For More Inflation Upside Chart I-4China: Inflation Is Picking Up However, disposable income (a proxy for wages) growth in China remains subdued, given economic growth has been very weak (Chart I-5, top panel). Hence, there are no imminent wage pressures in China like there are in the U.S. That said, unit labor costs in China are still rising because output per hour (productivity) growth has decelerated notably (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates have not yet increased much and remain low worldwide. As global growth conditions remain robust and inflation data surprise on the upside, interest rates both in nominal and real terms will likely rise. In the U.S., 10-year Treasury yields adjusted for the average consumer price inflation (currently running at 2.0%) stand at 0.35% (Chart I-6, top panel). Consistently, U.S. 10- and 5-year TIPS yields are 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Provided U.S. growth remains robust and the labor market continues to improve, there are no reasons for U.S. TIPS yields to stay at these low levels. Chart I-5China: Wage Proxy And Unit Labor Costs Chart I-6U.S. Real Yields Are Low A strong U.S. dollar could have been an impediment to a potential rise in real rates, but year-to-date the greenback has been tame. In addition, U.S. share prices and high-yield corporate bonds are handling the news of Federal Reserve tightening well. All of this opens a window for both nominal and real U.S. bond yields to rise in the near term. On the whole, either the U.S. dollar will spike soon or U.S. interest rates will climb further. The latter will eventually cause the greenback to appreciate. This will be especially troublesome for EM risk assets. In China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart I-7, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate was negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart I-7, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Considering the above as well as improved growth in China and higher bond yields globally, we expect mainland policymakers to tolerate marginally higher interest rates. Notably, China's onshore domestic corporate bond yields, swap rates and the interbank repo rate have already been rising since last autumn - a trend that will likely persist for now (Chart I-8). Chart I-7China: Real Deposit Rates Have Turned ##br##Negative China: Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-8China: Interest ##br##Rates Are In Uptrend We do not have strong conviction on how persistent and pervasive the nascent inflation uptrend will be in the U.S. and China. Inflation is driven by numerous structural and cyclical variables, and they often work in opposite directions. The outlook for these variables is not identical to draw a definite conclusion about the inflation trajectory in the long run. In this report, we cover just one aspect of inflation - how liquidity and money relate to and drive consumer prices (please see the section below). Bottom Line: Odds are that there could be a global inflation/interest rates scare in the near term, and bond yields will continue rising in the next two to three months. Monetary-Liquidity Approach To Inflation As Milton Friedman famously stated: Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. Yet a relevant question is which monetary aggregates do really impact inflation. Identifying specific monetary aggregates that impact inflation will help us gauge the outlook for the latter. Central bank liquidity provisioning to banks does not necessarily cause inflation to rise. It is money/credit creation by commercial banks that generates higher inflation. In any banking system, it is commercial banks that create loans. Central banks emit and supply banks with liquidity - commercial banks' reserves held at the central bank - but the monetary authorities do not create money directly, except when they finance the government or non-bank organizations directly or buy financial assets from them. Money is created by commercial banks when they originate loans. Similarly, money is destroyed when a loan is repaid to a bank. Commercial banks do not need savings and/or deposits to originate loans. They create a deposit themselves when they grant a loan. Yet banks require liquidity (reserves at the central bank) to settle their payments with other banks. Banks seek liquidity in various ways, such as by attracting deposits, borrowing money from the central bank and in interbank markets as well as raising funds abroad, among other methods. When a bank attracts deposits, these deposits constitute outflows of deposits from other banks, or a drainage of cash in circulation that was once a deposit at another bank and was cashed out. In short, these deposits do not fall out of the sky, and do not constitute new deposits/savings in the banking system and the economy. On the whole, when a commercial bank extends a loan it creates a new deposit, and thereby new money - i.e. it increases money supply. When a bank attracts a deposit, it does not create a new deposit or new money. The existing money/deposit simply moves from one bank to another, or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. A bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it generates. It requires liquidity (reserves at the central bank) only to settle its balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it might not require liquidity to "back up" the loan.1 This is the reason why quantitative easing programs implemented by central banks in the advanced countries did not produce high inflation. Even though central banks conducting QEs - the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan - supplied a lot of banking system liquidity, and commercial banks' reserves at the central bank skyrocketed, commercial banks initially were reluctant to originate new loans. Where are we presently in money/credit cycles in major economies? Chart I-9 demonstrates broad money growth for the U.S., the euro area, China and EM ex-China. Broad money growth is still strong across the world. In addition, there is a reasonable, albeit not perfect, correlation between broad money and inflation as depicted in Chart I-10. In China, money aggregates in 2015-16 were distorted by the LGFV debt swap. Outside this episode, there is a reasonable relationship, as one would expect: broad money growth explains swings in inflation. The key message from this chart is that the rise in inflation is possible in the near term but is unlikely to prove sustainable and lasting in these largest three world economies if broad money growth continues downshifting. The reason behind the drop in broad money growth is a notable slowdown in bank loans in the U.S. and China (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Broad Money Growth Across World Chart I-10Broad Money Growth And Inflation Chart I-11Bank Loan Growth Slowdown In The U.S. And China It is a safe bet that with more upside in global and local interest rates, bank loan growth is likely to slump in China/EM. Furthermore, given the credit bubble in China and the authorities' efforts to contain risks, odds are that bank loan and overall credit growth will decelerate by the end of this year. On another note, the sheer size of the credit bubble in China is also corroborated by the amount of outstanding broad money. In common currency (U.S. dollar) terms, the outstanding amount of broad money (M2) is almost two times larger in China than M2 in the U.S. and M3 in the euro area (Chart I-12). This is despite the fact that China's nominal GDP is US$11 trillion, smaller than U.S. GDP of US$19 trillion, and comparable to euro area GDP of US$12 trillion. In fact, the outstanding broad money supply in China in absolute U.S. dollar terms is only slightly less than the combined broad money supply in the U.S. and euro area. Chart I-13 illustrates broad money as a share of country GDP in all three economies. The upshot is that Chinese commercial banks have created much more money relative to GDP than U.S. and euro area banks. Chart I-12China's Money Supply Is ##br##Enormous In U.S. Dollars And... Chart I-13...Relative To GDP The question is why China has not had high inflation despite such immense money overflow. The answer is that China has been investing a lot, and the supply of goods and services in China has risen very rapidly too. That said, this money has created a property market bubble in China. We will discuss/debate the issues surrounding China's money, credit and savings in a forthcoming China Debate piece with our BCA colleagues. Bottom Line: What ultimately drives economic cycles and inflation is money created by commercial banks, not central bank liquidity provisioning to banks. China/EM broad money growth is still unsustainably strong and it will fall further. Growth Scare Before Year End? Chart I-14China: Corporate Bond Prices Are Falling If EM/China credit growth decelerates, as we expect to happen toward the end of this year, it will not only cap inflation but also cause a growth scare. Although U.S. and euro area growth could soften a notch from current levels, the main downside to global growth stems from EM/China, as we have repeatedly written. Given China's onshore corporate bonds rallied dramatically in 2015-'16 on the back of massive investor-buying, a further drop in these bond prices might trigger an exodus of funds and a meaningful push-up in corporate bond yields. In fact, the price of onshore corporate bonds continues to make new lows, and is already down 8% from its peak in November 2015 (Chart I-14). Chart I-15U.S. And German Bond Prices More Downside? This will in turn cause corporate bond issuance and other non-bank financing to slump. This will occur at time when bank loan growth is already decelerating, and the authorities are aiming to reduce speculative activity in the financial system via a regulatory clampdown. Ultimately, higher borrowing costs along with regulatory tightening of banks' off-balance-sheet operations will cause a slowdown in China's domestic credit flows in the second half of 2017. The rest of EM will decelerate on the back of a China slowdown, which will reverberate via lower mainland imports and declining commodities prices. In addition, the banking systems in many EMs have not adjusted following the credit boom of the preceding years. Unhealthy banking systems and higher global interest rates will cause further retrenchment in domestic credit creation. Bottom Line: A renewed slump in China/EM growth later this year will trigger growth disappointments globally. Investment Strategy It seems global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. DM bond yields will likely rise further. Remarkably, both U.S. and German 30-year bond prices have already fallen by 23% from their July highs and there might be more downside (Chart I-15). BCA's Relative Risk Indicator for U.S. stocks versus U.S. Treasurys is over-extended at a very high level (Chart I-16). When this indicator has historically been at similar levels underweighting stocks versus bonds has paid off. Notably, when inflation is rising equity multiples should shrink. This has often been the case in the U.S., though not lately (Chart I-17). Chart I-16U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds Relative Risk Indicator Chart I-17Rising Inflation = Compressing Multiples Chart I-18A Number Of EM Currencies Are Facing Resistance EM risk assets warrant an underweight position across equities, credit and currencies. The list of our country allocation within the EM universe for stocks, credit and local bonds is provided on page 14. Commodities prices in the near term are at risk from a strong U.S. dollar and later in the year from a slowdown in Chinese growth. Several EM currencies are at a critical technical juncture (Chart I-18). We expect these resistance levels not to be broken. We recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, CLP and COP. On a relative basis, we overweight RUB, MXN, THB, TWD, INR, PLN, HUF and CZK. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on the process of money and credit creation, please refer to Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses" dated October 26, 2016, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016 and "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017, links available on page 16. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights We discuss three "battles" that will shape the investment landscape in the euro area over the remainder of the decade. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging - Reflation will triumph over the next 12 months. For the time being, this justifies an overweight position in euro area equities. Beyond then, the outlook is likely to darken. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves - The doves will win. Germany will reluctantly accept an overheated economy and higher inflation. Stay short the euro. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists - Marine Le Pen will lose this year's election, but Europe's populist parties will finally gain the upper hand by the end of the decade. Buy gold as a long-term hedge. Feature Market Update Global equities are technically overbought in the short term, but the longer-term cyclical (12-month) trend remains to the upside. Chart 1 illustrates the "reflation trade" in a nutshell. The Citigroup global economic and inflation surprise indices have surged and now stand at their highest combined level in the 14-year history of the series. While tracking estimates for Q1 U.S. GDP growth have fallen, this is mainly because of negative contributions from government spending, net exports, and inventories. Taken together, these three factors have shaved about 1.4 percentage points off of Q1 growth according to the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model (Chart 2). Private final domestic demand is still growing at a reasonably robust 2.6% pace, and forward-looking indicators such as the ISM indices suggest that this number could rise over the next few quarters. Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Underlying U.S. Growth Is Still Healthy As such, it is not too surprising that U.S. equities have had little trouble digesting the prospect of a March Fed rate hike. The market is still pricing in less than three rate increases this calendar year. Four hikes would not be out of the question. Investors should remain positioned for a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets such as the euro area and Japan over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. The Battle For Europe History is often shaped by great battles. Sometimes these are of the military variety. But often they transcend physical conflict, pitting competing ideas, interests, and trends against one another. In the remainder of this week's report, we discuss three economic and political battles that will determine Europe's fortunes over the next 12 months and beyond. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging The euro area grew faster than the U.S. in 2016, the first time this has happened since 2008. While the U.S. is likely to resume pole position in 2017, we still expect the euro area economy to expand at an above-trend pace. That should be enough to keep unemployment on a downward trajectory. The euro area economic surprise index remains in positive territory. The composite PMI rose to 56 in February - the highest level since April 2011 - with the forward-looking "new orders" component hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart 3). In addition, private-sector credit growth has sped up to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis (Chart 4). All this is good news for the region. Investors should overweight euro area equities on a currency-hedged basis over the next 12 months. Chart 3Euro Area Growth Holding Up Well Chart 4Euro Area: Accelerating Private-Sector ##br##Credit Growth Beyond then, things look murkier. The ECB's Bank Lending Standards survey showed a modest tightening in lending standards for business loans in Q4 of 2016 (Chart 5). Private-sector debt levels also remain elevated across the region, which is likely to dampen credit demand (Chart 6). Both of these factors suggest that loan growth could begin to moderate later this year. Chart 5Slight Tightening In Lending Standards ##br##For Business Loans And Mortgages In Q4 Of 2016 Chart 6Still A Lot Of Debt If the positive impulse from rising credit growth does begin to fade, GDP growth will fall off. Whether that proves to be just another run-of-the-mill "mid-cycle slowdown" or something more nefarious will depend on the policy response. On the fiscal side, the period of extended austerity has ended. The fiscal thrust in the euro area turned positive last year, the first time this has happened since 2010. The European Commission is advising member states to loosen fiscal policy further this year, but the governments themselves are targeting a modest tightening (Chart 7). With a slew of elections slated for this year, budget overruns will be hard to avoid. Nevertheless, barring a significant economic slowdown, no major European economy is likely to launch a large fiscal stimulus program anytime soon. Thus, while fiscal policy will not be a drag on growth, it will not provide much of a tailwind either. Chart 7European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion This puts the ball back in the ECB's court. As we discuss next, monetary policy is likely to stay highly accommodative. That should help extend the cyclical recovery into 2018. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves Jean Claude Trichet's decision to raise rates in 2011 would have gone down as the most disastrous blunder the ECB ever made, were it not for his even more disastrous decision to raise rates in 2008. Mario Draghi has gone out of his way to avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessor. Nevertheless, the risk is that the improving growth backdrop instills a false sense of complacency. There is no doubt that Draghi has become more confident about the economic outlook. The ECB revised up its growth and inflation projections for 2017-18 at this week's meeting and signaled that it was unlikely to extend its targeted longer-term refinancing operations, or TLTROs. The ECB is also likely to further reduce the value of its monthly asset purchases in 2018 with a view towards phasing them out completely by the end of that year. It is possible that these steps could trigger a "taper tantrum" in European government debt markets of the sort the U.S. experienced in 2013. If that were to happen, we would see it as a buying opportunity. As Draghi stressed during his press conference, wage growth is anemic. Without faster wage growth, inflationary pressures will remain muted. Granted, euro area headline inflation reached 2.0% in February. However, this was mainly the result of base effects stemming from higher food and energy prices. Our expectation is that headline inflation will fall back close to 1% by the end of the year. This is where core inflation currently stands. One should also keep in mind that the trade-weighted euro has depreciated by 8% since mid-2014 (Chart 8). To the extent that a weaker euro has put upward pressure on import prices, this has caused core inflation to be higher than it would otherwise have been. In contrast, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar has appreciated by 24% over this period. Yet, despite the diverging path between the two currencies, core inflation in the euro area remains noticeably lower than in the U.S. This is true even if one excludes housing costs from the U.S. CPI in order to make it more comparable to the European estimate of inflation. Excluding shelter, U.S. core inflation is currently 43 basis points higher than in the euro area (Chart 9). The point is that the Fed is much further along the path to monetary policy normalization than the ECB. Chart 8A Stronger Dollar Has Restrained U.S. Inflation... Chart 9...Yet Core Inflation In The U.S. ##br##Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing If that were all to the story, it would be enough to justify the ECB's wait-and-see approach. But there is so much more. Start with the fact that the euro area's poor demographics, high debt levels, and dysfunctional institutions all imply that the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment - is lower there than in the U.S. How does one ensure that real rates can fall to a low enough level in the event of an economic slowdown? One solution is to target a higher inflation rate. If inflation is running at 1% going into a recession, it might be impossible to bring real rates down much below -1%. But if inflation is running at 3%, real rates can fall to as low as -3%. This implies that the ECB should actually target a higher inflation rate than the Fed. Then there are the internal constraints imposed by the common currency. Countries with flexible exchange rates can adjust to adverse economic shocks by letting their currencies depreciate. That is not possible within the euro area. If one or a few countries in the region are suffering while others are not, the unlucky ones have to engineer an "internal devaluation." This requires that wages and prices in the ill-fated countries decline in relation to those in the better-performing ones. However, if inflation is already low in the latter, outright deflation may be necessary in the former, something that only a deep recession can achieve. The travails experienced by the peripheral countries over the past eight years brought home this lesson in stark and painful terms. Will Germany accept higher inflation? There is little in its recent history to suggest that it won't. Mario Draghi was not the odds-on favorite to become ECB president. That job was supposed to go to Axel Weber, the former president of the Bundesbank. Weber met with Angela Merkel on February 10, 2011. During this meeting with the chancellor, he made it clear that he did not support the ECB's emergency bond buying. Merkel balked and so the next day Weber tendered his resignation. Six months after that, ECB board member and uber-hawk Jürgen Stark quit, leaving the ECB more firmly in the control of the doves.1 Chart 10Germans Turning Radically Europhile Merkel's preference for a less hawkish ECB leadership wasn't solely based on altruistic feelings towards her European compatriots. Politically, Merkel knew full well that Germany would be blamed for the breakup of the euro area. Economically, German taxpayers also stood to lose a lot from a breakup. It is easy to forget now, but Germany spent 8% of GDP during the global financial crisis on bailing out its own banks. All that effort would have been for naught if German banks had been forced to write off billions of euros in loans that they had extended to peripheral Europe. Critically, the demise of the euro would have also saddled German exporters with a much more expensive Deutsche Mark, thus blowing a hole through the country's gargantuan current account surplus. The calculus has not changed much over the last six years. Germany may not welcome higher inflation, but the alternative is much worse. If anything, the polls suggest that German voters have become even more Europhile since the euro crisis ended (Chart 10). This gives Draghi even more free rein. For investors, this implies that the ECB is unlikely to raise rates for the next two years, and perhaps not until the end of the decade. As inflation expectations across the euro area drift higher, real rates will fall. This will push down the value of the euro. We expect EUR/USD to approach parity over the course of this year. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists First Brexit, then Trump, and now Le Pen? The spread between French and German 10-year government bond yields briefly touched 68 basis points in February, the highest level since the euro crisis (Chart 11). While the spread has edged down since then, investors remain on edge. Betting markets are currently assigning a one-in-three chance that Le Pen will become president, close to the odds that they were giving Donald Trump before his surprise victory (Chart 12). Chart 11Investors Worried About The Coming ##br##French Election Chart 12Will Le Pen Rule? Wanna Bet? There is little doubt that populism is in a secular "bull market." However, that doesn't mean that every populist politician is going to win every single election. For all their faults, U.S. nationwide presidential election polls were not that far off the mark. The RealClearPolitics average had Clinton up by 3.2% going into the election. She won by 2.1 points. Where the polls fell flat was at the state level. They completely underestimated Trump support in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That's not an issue in France, where the presidential vote is tallied at the national level. Le Pen currently trails Macron by 26 percentage points in a head-to-head contest (Chart 13). It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. The only way that Le Pen could win is if one of the two leftist candidates drops out.2 However, given the animosity between Benoit Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, that is almost inconceivable. And even if that did occur, the odds would still favor Macron slipping into the final round. As such, investors should downplay risks of a populist uprising this year. Beyond then, things are likely to get messier. At some point, Europe will face another downturn, either of its own doing or the result of an external shock. Many voters have been reluctant to vote for populist leaders out of fear that the ensuing economic turmoil could leave them out of a job. But if they have already lost their jobs, that reason goes away. Chart 14 shows the strong correlation between unemployment in various French départements, and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. If French unemployment rises, her support is likely to increase as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 13Macron Leads Le Pen By A Mile Chart 14Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen In addition, worries about large-scale immigration from outside Europe will continue to work to the advantage of populist leaders. Recent immigrants and their children have sometimes struggled to integrate into European society. This has manifested itself in the form of low labor participation rates, poor educational achievement, elevated involvement in criminal activity, and high welfare usage. The problem has been especially acute in European countries with very generous welfare states (Chart 15). Chart 15Many Immigrants To Europe Are Lagging Behind The reaction of establishment parties to mounting concerns about immigration has been completely counterproductive. Rather than acknowledging the problems, they have sought to censor uncomfortable "hatefacts" and stage show trials of populist leaders - such as the one Marine Le Pen will likely be subjected to for her alleged crime of tweeting graphic photos of terrorist atrocities. This strategy will backfire and the result will be a wave of populist victories towards the end of the decade. With that in mind, investors should consider buying some gold as a long-term hedge. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe: Game Was Changed A Long Time Ago,” in a Monthly Report, “Fortuna And Policymakers,” dated October 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe – Election Update, France,” in a Weekly Report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The Fed's evident desire to lift its policy rate next week - presumably to get out ahead of inflation that has yet to show up in its preferred gauge - will weigh on gold. Oil ... not so much. This is because fundamentals once again are asserting themselves in the evolution of oil prices, something that has been evident even before markets balanced last year. Gold, meanwhile, remains exquisitely sensitive to Fed policy expectations and their effects on the USD and real rates, as with other currencies. Energy: Overweight. We are looking to re-establish our long WTI Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 spread if it trades in contango again, i.e., if Dec/17 is less than Dec/18. We believe the combination of OPEC and non-OPEC adherence to their production Agreement will remain high, and demand likely will remain stout. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper is down ~ $0.10/lb on COMEX over the past week. We expect transitory supply issues in Chile and Indonesia to be resolved, and reflationary stimulus in China to wane going into the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party in the autumn, and, with it, copper demand. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is weakening as the Fed's March meeting approaches next week, given the overwhelming expectation for a 25bp rate hike. We remain long volatility, expecting fiscal-policy uncertainty in the U.S. to be resolved over the next few months, and Fed policy drivers to become more focused. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are not expecting significant changes in the USDA's estimates of stocks globally, and therefore remain underweight. Feature The choreographed messaging of voting and non-voting FOMC members asserting the need for a policy-rate hike over the past two weeks succeeded in pushing markets' expectations for such action to 88.6% as of Tuesday's close, up from 44.6% at the end of February. This despite the fact that the Fed's preferred inflation gauge - core PCE - has yet to show any sign of pushing up and thru the Fed's target of 2% growth yoy (Chart of the Week). Nor, for that matter, has core PCE shown any tendency to remain above 2% yoy growth over the past two decades (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed's Preferred Inflation ##br##Gauge Still Quiescent Chart 2Core PCE Has Been ##br##Quiescent For Decades Between mid-December 2016 and the end of last month, gold prices rallied ~11.3% largely on the expectation the Fed would not raise rates until at least June, and, even then, would be constrained by uncertainty over what Congress and the Trump Administration would offer up in terms of fiscal policy later this year. Now, with the Fed succeeding in raising the market's expectation of a March rate hike, gold markets are left to re-calibrate the number of hikes to expect this year, and the likely implications for the USD and real rates. We believe the Fed will execute three rate hikes this year, but this will be highly dependent on how markets react to the now fully priced-in hike markets expect next week. Synchronized Growth, Inflation And Feedback Loops It is likely the Fed feels confident accelerating its rates normalization because, for the first time since the Global Financial crisis, we are getting a globally synchronized recovery in GDP. All else equal, this will give the U.S. central bank a bit of headroom to experiment with an earlier-than-expected rate hike. This synchronized growth also will provide a positive backdrop for commodity demand this year and next (Chart 3). The possibility of highly stimulative - or even just moderately stimulative - fiscal policy in the U.S. at a time when the economy is apparently at or close to full employment, will be positive for aggregate demand, and could be inflationary if its principal result is to lift real wages in the U.S. In addition to synchronized growth, we also are seeing evidence of synchronized inflation in the largest economies in the world (Chart 4). Chart 3Synchronized Global Growth ##br##Could Embolden The Fed Chart 4Synchronized Inflation Globally ##br##Likely Caught The Fed's Attention This synchronized growth and inflation is, we believe, important to the Fed, in that its effects constitute something of a global feedback loop. As we have noted in earlier research, the Fed is much more sensitive to how its policy actions affect other economies, given the deepening of global supply chains over the past two decades or so. Equally, policymakers are well aware the evolution of monetary policy and economic growth in other economies affects the U.S. growth and policy variables important to the Fed.1 Absent a policy shock in the U.S., Europe or China, the backdrop for EM growth should remain positive for at least 2017, even with reflationary stimulus waning in China, a left-tail risk to commodity prices that we identified in last week's publication.2 We expect the Fed's policy normalization to be tempered by continued monetary accommodation globally, which will be supportive of growth at the margin. This will keep global oil demand growth on track to average 1.50 - 1.60mm b/d this year and next, and, importantly for inflation and inflation expectations, keep EM oil demand growing. The income elasticity of per-capita oil consumption in EM economies typically is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in EM incomes is associated with a 1% increase in EM oil demand.3 EM growth accounts for close to 85% of the growth we expect in global oil demand this year. This is important, given EM oil demand, which we proxy with the U.S. EIA's non-OECD oil consumption time series, to be a common factor that explains the evolution of the CPI series shown above (Chart 5). EM oil demand is able to explain the synchronization of inflation in the three largest economies in the world is because incremental growth is occurring in the EM economies, and this is driving global growth. We continue to expect high compliance in the OPEC - non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia at the end of last year, which will, against the backdrop of continued global growth, cause inventories to fall and for markets to backwardate. We believe last week's increase in U.S. crude oil inventories to be the last big build, and expect the decline to begin later this month. On average vessels leaving the Persian Gulf destined for the U.S. have a 45- to 50-day sailing period depending on multiple factors such route, weather and sea conditions. Therefore, the recent increase in U.S. crude oil inventories can be linked to the arrival of the final fleet of vessels in concert with the pre-OPEC agreement production surge undertaken by the GCC. Evidence of this phenomenon is apparent in the ~500k b/d increase in U.S. crude oil imports (374k b/d coming from Iraq) over the prior week. We expect OECD oil stocks to start declining this month and fall some 300mm bbl before the end of 2017. This supply-demand dynamic will continue to dominate financial-market influences on oil prices, as we argued in last week's publication (Chart 6).4 Gold, on the other hand, will continue to take its cue from Fed policy and policy expectations, particularly as regards expectations for the USD, which should strengthen at the margin, given the Fed's new-found hawkishness, and real rates, which also should strengthen (Chart 7). Chart 5EM Oil Demand Continues##br## To Drive Inflation Chart 6IF KSA And Russia Can ##br##Coordinate Production... Chart 7Gold Will Continue To Take##br## Its Cue From Fed Policy Bottom Line: Oil prices will continue to be dominated by supply-demand-inventory fundamentals, with monetary policy effects on the evolution of prices taking a secondary role. Gold prices will continue to take their cue from Fed policy and policy expectations. We look to re-establish our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread if it trades thru flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl). Given our gold view, we remain long volatility via the put spreads and call spreads we recommended February 23 - i.e., long Jun/17 $1,200/oz puts vs. short $1,150/oz puts, and long $1,275/oz calls vs. short $1,325/oz calls. The position was up 15% as of Tuesday's close. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports "Global Inflation and Commodity Markets," dated August 11, 2016, and "Memo To The Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," dated August 4, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Gold's Known Unknowns, And Fat Tails," dated February 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Oil consumption frequently is employed to approximate EM income growth, given the income elasticity of demand for oil is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in income (GDP) produces an increase in demand for oil of approximately 1.0%. The OECD notes, "Non-OECD countries are found to have a higher income elasticity of oil demand than OECD countries. On average across countries, a one per cent rise in real GDP pushes up oil demand by half a per cent in OECD countries over the medium to long run, whereas the figure is closer to unity for most non-OECD countries." Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Days Of Oil Future's Past: Mean Reversion," dated March 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in

Highlights Assessing Our Tilts: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. Fed Vs ECB: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. U.K.: Gilts have already priced in a significantly weaker U.K. economic outlook, especially with regards to consumer spending, yet inflation expectations are only now starting to peak. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts with yields already at rich levels. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks Getting ##br##Behind The Curve? A whiff of central bank hawkishness has quickly swept over the major bond markets. In the U.S., a series of Fed speeches, coming after a string of improving economic data amid booming asset markets, has turned a March Fed rate hike from a long-shot to a virtual certainty in little more than a week. In Europe, another round of stronger inflation data is emboldening some of the hawks at the European Central Bank (ECB) to more openly question if some tapering of the central bank's asset purchases will be necessary next year. Even in the U.K., the Bank of England (BoE) is letting its latest round of Gilt quantitative easing (QE) expire, although the BoE is not close to considering a rate hike, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Chart 2A Supportive Backdrop ##br##For Taking Credit Risk A move by the Fed next week now seems like a done deal, and the new question for investors is: how many more times the Fed will lift rates in 2017? The market is now pricing in "only" 75bps of hikes over the next year, even as the S&P 500 sits close to its all-time high and U.S. jobless claims hit a 43-year low last week (Chart 1). We still see three hikes - the Fed's current projection - to be the most that the Fed will deliver in 2017. Yet the fact that equity & credit markets have taken the rising odds of a March rate increase in stride might nudge the Fed towards even more hikes this year than currently forecast. Bond markets around the world will likely not take a shift higher in the Fed "dots" very well, although in the U.S. the immediate upside for yields remains tempered by the persistent short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. We still expect Treasury yields to rise over the next 6-9 months, though, driven by additional increases in inflation expectations rather than a sharp repricing of the expected path of the funds rate. The biggest risk looming for global bonds, however, would come from any signal by the ECB that a taper is in the cards next year. That would likely result in wider term premiums and bear-steepening of yield curves in the major developed government bond markets. It would be a surprise if the ECB started preparing the markets for a less accommodative policy stance at this week's meeting, although questions about a taper will certainly be posed to ECB President Draghi by reporters after the meeting. Evaluating Our Recommendations As Global Growth Improves Back on January 31st, we shifted to a more pro-growth stance in our fixed income portfolio recommendations, moving our duration tilt back to below-benchmark, while downgrading government debt and upgrading corporate bond exposure.1 The key to that shift was a growing body of evidence pointing to a broadening global economic upturn. The latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) released last week confirmed that the business cycle dynamics continue to accelerate to the upside (Chart 2). This will maintain upward pressure on bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. Our portfolio recommendations have generally done well since we made our shift. In Chart 3, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the individual government debt markets versus the overall Barclays Global Treasury Index since the end of January. Our underweight positions in the U.S., Spain and Australia (up to February 21st, when we upgraded Aussie debt to neutral) performed well, as did our overweights in core Europe (Germany & France). Our worst performing tilts were our below-benchmark stances on Italy, which benefitted greatly from some diminished pressures on French government debt last week, and U.K. Gilts, which we discuss later in this report. In Chart 4, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the major spread product markets, since January 31. Our decisions to upgrade U.S. investment grade (IG) to above-benchmark, and U.S. high-yield (HY) to neutral, have done well as U.S. corporate spreads continue to tighten in response to improving U.S. economic growth. Our relative exposures between the U.S. and Euro Area remain our biggest tilts between countries. Specifically, we remain overweight core Euro Area government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, while we are neutral U.S. HY and underweight Euro Area equivalents. On IG corporate debt, we are above-benchmark on both sides of the Atlantic. Our marginal preference, however, is for U.S. IG given the shifting changes in relative balance sheet health in the U.S. (improving, but from relatively poor levels) versus Europe (stable, but at relatively strong levels) suggested by our Corporate Health Monitors. On a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, our relative U.S. vs Euro Area tilts have done well since our major allocation shift on January 31 (Chart 5), with Treasuries underperforming, U.S. HY outperforming and both U.S. and European IG performing similarly. Chart 3Our Recent Country Allocation Performance Chart 4Our Recent Spread Product Allocation Performance Chart 5Our Europe Vs U.S. Tilts Have Done Well Of Late Bottom Line: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product risk versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. The Timing Of A Potential "Bund Tantrum" Looking ahead, timing a potential turn in our U.S. versus Europe tilts will likely remain the biggest call we make this year. With the Fed now set to raise rates again next week, and the ECB likely to deflect any talk of a taper to after the upcoming French elections (at the earliest), the bias will remain toward Treasury market underperformance in the near term. Yet the marginal pressures on inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area suggest that a turning point in U.S./Core Europe bond spreads could arrive sooner than many expect. While realized inflation rates are moving higher in both regions, the underlying price pressures have a different look. In the U.S., headline inflation (using the Fed's preferred measure, the change in the personal consumption expenditure, or PCE, deflator) has risen to 1.89%, a mere 15bps above core PCE inflation with both measures now sitting just below the Fed's 2% target. Yet the breadth of the rise in core inflation has rolled over, according to our diffusion index (Chart 6). This suggests that the recent acceleration in core inflation, which we believe the Fed is most focused on, may take a pause in the next few months. The opposite is true in the Euro Area, where headline HICP inflation (the ECB's target measure) has soared to 1.9%, right at the ECB target of "at or just below" 2%. The gap between headline and core HICP inflation has been widening, though, as there has been very little follow through from the acceleration in headline inflation, largely driven by base effects related to previous rises in energy prices and declines in the euro, into core prices. Our Euro Area headline inflation diffusion index is moving higher, highlighting that the increase in headline HICP inflation is becoming more broadly based (Chart 7). Chart 6A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation Chart 7A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation The cyclical uptrend in Euro Area growth and inflation is also fairly broad-based at the country level, with the individual country PMIs and headline HICP inflation rates all in solid uptrends for the major countries in the region (Chart 8). At the same time, core inflation rates remain well contained. Various ECB members have pointed to the benign core inflation readings as a reason to stay the course on extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. Yet with unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a consensus view on maintaining the status quo on ECB policy. Already, the German Bundesbank has been quite vocal in questioning the need for the ECB to maintain the current pace of its asset purchase program, and that pressure will only grow with German inflation now above 2%. So how close is the ECB to a potential asset purchase taper? Some clues emerge when comparing Europe now to the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum." In Chart 9, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for both the Euro Area and U.S. All series in the chart are lined up to the peak in our Months-To-Hike indicator, which measures the number of months to the first rate hike of the next interest rate cycle, as discounted in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That indicator peaked in the U.S. in late 2012, several months before Ben Bernanke's infamous speech in May 2013 that signaled the Fed's QE appetite was beginning to wane. Chart 8A Consistent Upturn##br## In Europe Chart 9Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now Vs ##br##Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. In the Euro Area, the Months-To-Hike indicator peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, the indicator remains much higher than it ever was in the U.S. during the QE era, indicating how the market believes that the ECB will have to maintain zero (or lower) interest rates for longer. Yet, by some measures, the ECB is closer to reaching its policy goals then the Fed was in 2012/13. In the 2nd panel of Chart 9, we show the "unemployment gap" - the difference between the unemployment rate and the rate consistent with inflation stability - for the U.S. and Euro Area. Note that there is far less spare capacity in labor markets today in Europe than there was in the U.S. when the Fed raised the topic of a QE taper to the markets. The U.S. unemployment rate was a full three percentage points above the full employment level in 2012, while Euro Area unemployment is now only one percentage point above full employment. In the bottom two panels of Chart 9, we show the gap between headline and core inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area, relative to the 2% inflation targets that both the Fed and ECB aim to hit. U.S. inflation was in the vicinity of the Fed's target around the time of the Taper Tantrum. While Euro Area headline inflation is similarly close to the ECB's 2% target today, core inflation is much further away from 2% than U.S. core inflation was four years ago. If the ECB focuses on headline rather than core inflation, then Europe could be getting close to its own Taper Tantrum. Yet the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to make a rush to judgement on its asset purchase program, especially given the uncertainties presented by the upcoming French elections in April & May. We are still maintaining our overweight stance on core European government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, but we are growing increasingly worried that a turning point may be on the horizon. As can be seen in the additional cycle-on-cycle comparisons in Chart 10, the benchmark 10-year German Bund is tracing out a similar path to that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury around the time of the Fed Taper Tantrum. If the ECB focuses on the tightening labor market and accelerating pace of headline inflation in the Euro Area, a "Bund Tantrum" could become the big story for global bond markets later this year. Bottom Line: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. Gilt(y) Optimism? The British economy has surprised to the upside in the last few months. Policy uncertainty has collapsed, while inflation expectations have marched higher and business optimism has stabilized. Most surprising against this backdrop, Gilt returns, on a currency hedged basis, have beaten most of their developed market fixed income peers (Chart 11). Chart 10A Bund Taper On The Horizon? Chart 11Gilts Should Have Underperformed This outperformance cannot be linked to factors such as the usual safe-haven status of Gilts, with no signs of major financial stresses in the Euro Area that would cause money to flow into Gilts (Chart 12). Indeed, the opposite has been happening as foreigners have been net sellers of Gilts in recent months. A better explanation might come from what has become a bond-bullish linkage between the British currency, inflation, real wages and consumption. In all likelihood, investors have already incorporated most of the impact of a weak Pound on U.K. inflation expectations and Gilt yields. Yet higher expected prices continue to erode household purchasing power, leading to weaker consumer spending (Chart 13). This dynamic is bullish for bonds. Chart 12Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Chart 13Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Already, this backdrop has become widely accepted. The Bloomberg survey of economists' forecasts is calling for U.K. consumer spending growth to decelerate to 1.6% on a year-over-year basis in 2017, down from 2.8% in 2016. The BoE adopted a more dovish stance at last month's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, citing the downside risks to consumption from high currency-driven inflation at a time of persistent spare capacity in labor markets and modest wage increases.2 This threat to U.K. growth from a more sluggish consumer should continue, at least in the short term. BCA's U.K. real average weekly earnings model is clearly pointing towards additional declines in inflation-adjusted wages (Chart 14). This should restrain consumption growth, especially as other factors boosting spending are likely to fade. For example, the gains to disposable income growth from falling interest rates are likely done for this cycle, with mortgage rates having little room to decline further from the current 2.5% level (Chart 15). Also, consumer credit is now expanding 10% year-over-year - a pace that is most likely unsustainable with household debt still at high levels relative to income and the savings rate having fallen close to pre-recession levels (Chart 16). As a result, U.K. consumers are unlikely to continue stretching their financial situation to support spending. Chart 14Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Chart 15Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Chart 16Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Additionally, the housing market could dent consumer confidence in the near term. Since the beginning of 2014, all measures of house price inflation have rolled over, while mortgage approvals have moved sideways (Chart 17). Signs of increased weakness are appearing and could force households to revise their spending habits downward. There are also potential risks coming from the business side, despite some more positive data of late. BCA's U.K. capex indicator, composed of several survey measures, points to a cyclical improvement in capital spending in the next few quarters. At the same time, net lending to non-financial institutions is growing at a robust rate (Chart 18), suggesting that credit availability is not an impairment for U.K. businesses. Chart 17Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Chart 18Some Optimism Is Warranted... However, the situation remains very fragile. The upcoming Brexit negotiations will keep animal spirits well contained. Firms have become more risk averse and less willing to take balance sheet risks according to the Deloitte CFO survey (Chart 19). Until the details on the U.K.'s future economic links to Europe are resolved, corporate decision-makers will be dissuaded from making long-term investments in productivity-enhancing capital such as plant and machinery. In turn, the continued lack of productivity gains will further depress U.K. corporate profitability (Chart 19, bottom panels). This uncertain environment will mean suppressed hiring intentions, greater slack in the economy and decreasing inflationary pressure. Consequently, the BoE should remain patient. The accommodative policy measures introduced last August after the Brexit vote have been working so far. Rock bottom real yields and highly expansionary money supply growth have spurred domestically generated inflation. While the BoE's latest Gilt QE program is expiring, there is no rush to hike rates until core inflation has reached the 2% threshold or until headline inflation tops out at 2.7% in Q1 2018, as the BoE predicts.3 As such, the probability of a rate hike this year, which has collapsed from 55% to 17% since January, will fall even further, to the benefit of Gilts (Chart 20). Chart 19...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate ##br##Effects Still Prevail Chart 20More Time Needed ##br##For The BoE This week, we are upgrading our recommended stance on Gilts from below-benchmark to neutral. We have maintained an underweight posture since October 18th of last year, primarily driven by our expectation that rising U.K. inflation would put upward pressure on Gilt yields. Now that the main force driving inflation higher - the exchange rate - is bottoming out and possibly set to reverse, we have to change tack. On that note, our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy have recently laid out a very compelling bullish case for the Pound.4 They disagree with the assessment that further volatility in the currency is warranted because of the Brexit process. They oppose the market narrative that: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. severely for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Exiting the common market is negative for the country's economy in the short-term; Remaining legal uncertainties about Brexit could derail the process. In their view, two events that occurred in January - the U.K. Supreme Court decision that the U.K. parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 and Prime Minister May's "Brexit means exit" speech - have reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The first because parliament would ultimately be bound by the popular referendum. The second because the main cause of European consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - was taken off the table. Thus, going forward, Europe will exact a price, but it will not be severe. And the negative economic repercussions of leaving will only be fully registered in the coming years. If our colleagues are right, an overweight position in Gilts could be tempting, as a stronger Pound would decrease inflation expectations, pushing nominal yields lower. This case is even stronger given the economic uncertainties we've laid out above. Despite their convincing arguments, we prefer to take a cautious approach, while waiting to see on what ground the Brexit negotiations will start. Moreover, Gilt valuations now seem rich, with spreads versus U.S. Treasuries at historic lows. Thus, we are only upgrading to a neutral allocation to Gilts for now. In our model portfolio (shown on Page 16), we are funding the increased Gilt allocations by equally reducing the U.S. and German exposure, given the upward pressure on yields in those markets described earlier in this Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy has surprised to the upside and inflation expectations have reacted in line with the domestic currency weakness. There is now a greater chance that both of those trends will reverse, to the benefit of Gilts. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts, especially with yield already at rich levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The BoE lowered its estimate of the full-employment level of the U.K. unemployment rate, consistent with accelerating wage growth, from 5% to 4.5% at the February MPC meeting. 3 Please see "Inflation Report", February 2017, Bank Of England, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?", dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights President Trump has the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the number of FOMC seats to fill and due to the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. In the current environment, the risk is that any loss of independence/politicization of the Fed would lead to higher inflation. Monitoring Trump's nominations will be the best way to gauge whether this is a legitimate worry for financial markets. Inflation will stay sufficiently benign in 2017 so that no more than three rate hikes occur in 2017. Feature Last week, a series of hawkish FOMC speeches caused expectations for a Fed rate hike in March to spike (Chart 1). On Friday, Yellen confirmed that a rate hike is likely in March as long as the data remains sufficiently strong. And Fed Governor Lael Brainard also signaled that a rate hike in mid-March is a high-probability outcome. What makes Brainard's hawkish comments particularly noteworthy is that she is well known to have very dovish leanings. She joins Fed Presidents Dudley and Williams, who also raised the prospect of raising rates this month earlier in the week. Chart 1March Rate Hike Expectations Surge In light of the recent Fed commentaries, our U.S. Bond Strategists now believe that a rate hike in March has a high likelihood. It will take a weak nonfarm payrolls report on Friday to stay the Fed's hand on March 15. As we note on page 7, the sudden hawkish shift to the Fed's rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the recent data, which do not call for any increased urgency to raise interest rates. For this reason, we believe it is premature to revise up the number of rate hikes likely to occur in 2017: we do not expect that economic and inflation performance will warrant a rate hike each quarter. Thus, we do not expect that overly tight monetary policy will be a risk to financial markets this year. This week, we focus on a longer-term threat to the monetary backdrop: the possibility of a more politicized Fed, and the implications for inflation. There has long been a healthy dose of suspicion in Congress about the Fed's role and conduct. But throughout Trump's campaign and now as president, the volume has been turned higher. There are several legislative proposals in recent years that have the potential to be advanced/passed during the next Presidential term: Audit The Fed: Audit the Fed legislation would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Fed's monetary policy decisions. The Fed's financial statements are already audited, and the GAO can examine most other Fed operations, but monetary policy decisions are currently exempt from needing Congress approval. This is the legislation that would be potentially most transformative for monetary policy, since it would subject the Fed to political pressure on monetary policy. Please see discussion below. The FORM Act: A main feature of the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act (FORM) is the so-called Taylor Rule requirement, which would require Fed officials to establish a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions, and require them to report to Congress if they deviate from the rule. We discussed the Taylor rule and the FORM Act in Detail in the February 13th Weekly Report (Chart 2). The bill also would allow the GAO to audit the Fed's policy decisions; widen membership of the Fed's rate-setting committee; require the Fed Chair to testify more frequently; and place new restrictions on the Fed's emergency lending powers. Chart 2 landscapeA "Rules-Based" Fed Would Be A Tighter Fed Following a mechanical rule would severely limit the Fed's flexibility in determining the appropriate path of monetary policy. Bailout Prevention Act: This measure is designed to curtail the Fed's powers to lend to financial firms in an emergency. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law put some restrictions in place, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aren't satisfied the Fed has taken the necessary steps to implement those restrictions. Chart 3WWII Policy Expansion The Fed's ability to respond during crisis would henceforth be limited. Fed Capital Stock: This measure aims at requiring the Fed to pay back capital that banks paid to be members of the Fed system. The bill was introduced in 2015 after Congress voted to lower the dividend the Fed pays banks on that capital to help pay for federal highway programs. All of the above legislation will, if passed, have an impact on financial assets. However, Audit The Fed threatens to be by far the most transformative: as we discuss below, a slippage of independence of the U.S. monetary authority would have long-term consequences for the ability of policymakers to control inflation. At The Intersection Of The Fed And The Treasury: Inflation The Federal Reserve is part of the public sector. Its "chief executive" is a government appointee, and politicians have the power to legislate changes to central banks' structure, responsibilities, and mandates. Independence generally is interpreted as meaning that central bankers are free to conduct day-to-day monetary policy without any interference or influence from politicians, i.e. they have operational independence, not legal independence. It was not until The Banking Act of 1935 that the Treasury Secretary and the Comptroller of the Currency were removed from the Fed's governing board.1 The main argument for an independent central bank is that money supply decisions should be made independent of the political process. In other words, monetary policy should not be influenced by short-term political considerations. This is especially true for indebted economies: when debt/GDP levels are rising, the temptation for governments to fix government balance sheets via inflation grows. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that episodes of proximity between centrals and government coincide with periods of inflation, and that these periods almost always occur after periods of fiscal largesse (Chart 3). It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. During WWII, the Fed played an important role in financing defense-bloated budget deficits. And during the Nixon era, Chairman Arthur Burns was justifiably accused of running an overly-expansionary policy to aid the re-election prospects of the President (Chart 4). At a speech last week to a joint session of Congress, President Trump took a more conciliatory tone than in the past on all facets of governing, and did not even mention the Federal Reserve. There were few details on his plans, but the President's repeated mention of infrastructure and "national rebuilding" highlights that an infrastructure spending bill will happen. A major jump in defense spending also appears assured, as are tax cuts for the corporate and household sector. Of primary concern is how the current Administration will choose to finance its fiscal expansion. The temptation to finance higher deficit spending with easy money may be too great. Moreover, with so many vacant spots to fill on the FOMC, it might be far easier to align the Fed with Trump's interests than passing new legislation. Chart 4Impact Of Monetary Shifts Diluting Independence Through The Back Door The discussion on pages 2-3 focused on a potential loss of independence of the Fed via the legislative process. But passing Audit The Fed and other similar bills require a supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate. In January of last year, the Audit the Fed bill could not cross that hurdle. The easier route to bringing the Fed closer in line with the Treasury may simply involve staffing decisions. Recall that the FOMC committee is made up of seven Federal Reserve governors plus five regional Fed Presidents. FOMC members are nominated by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate. The full term of a Governor is 14 years and appointments are staggered so that one term expires each even-numbered year. In theory, only one new voting member should be replaced every second year. However, over the course of 2015/16, Obama delayed making nominations. Subsequently, his nominations were not approved by the (Republican) Senate. There are currently three Governor positions available (out of the possible seven). Two vacancies have existed since 2014, and Daniel Tarullo has resigned, effective April 5, 2017. Of the voting regional Fed Presidents, two (Atlanta and Richmond) will be replaced by mid-2018. Regional Fed Presidents are chosen by the Federal Reserve Bank's board of directors and these directors are representatives from member banks. Thus, the President does not have sway over the two Regional bank replacements. However, it is quite likely that the current Vice-Chair Stanley Fischer will retire at the end of his term in June 2018, as possibly Janet Yellen will as well, thus giving President Trump the opportunity to choose a majority of FOMC voting members by the middle of 2018. There is tremendous potential for Trump to put his stamp on the Federal Reserve. What could a Trump-induced Fed look like? There are plenty of names that are circulating. In the Box 1 on page 9, we provide a shortlist of possible candidates. Note that the candidates we list are what we classify as "typical" FOMC nominations. That is, their backgrounds and CVs fit the profile of recent FOMC members. Of course, these members range in hawkishness/dovishness, and so picking a few that rate more hawkishly (dovishly) could speed up (slow down) the march toward higher rates. It is worth noting that our list of candidates are Republican and, based on their track record, would favor a more hawkish bias. A bigger risk to financial markets is that Trump chooses multiple members outside of this pool of candidates, as this would mark a departure from the status quo/inject uncertainty. After all, the President has not shown a particular appreciation for economists in general. For example, President Trump has delayed appointing a Chair to the Council of Economic Advisers and has made it clear that in any case, the Chair will not be part of the President's cabinet (breaking the seven-decade tradition). A diversity of thinking could be a good thing, as one or two new voices would surely bring new ideas and perspectives to the Fed. But we see two major issues. First, six new board members over the next year or so will represent a tremendous changing of the guard at one time. If the President chooses to look outside traditional candidates to fill the majority of the vacant seats, then the FOMC committee is likely to lack experienced policymakers. Politics aside, by 2018, it is possible that only four of the twelve voting FOMC members will be veterans on the committee. Second, as we mentioned above, past presidents have not had to deal with the same temptation to meddle in monetary policy: Trump has been handed the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the unprecedented number of FOMC seats to fill and the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. Whether he decides to do so is unclear, but it is a risk that investors should bear in mind. A melding of powers between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, should it occur, would be a very powerful structural inflationary force and would be a regime shift from the past couple of decades. Monitoring upcoming appointments over the next several months will help to understand to what extent this is a legitimate risk. Note, however, that for the year ahead, our view of inflation is unchanged; we simply do not believe that the U.S. economy is facing enough supply constraints to generate meaningful inflation pressures. Last week's data reinforces our view. Economy Update: Goldilocks, Continued Last week's major data releases supports our view of an economy that is running neither too hot nor too cold. True, the monthly rise in core PCE (0.3%) was strong, but once again, was driven by only a few components and does not represent broad-based inflation pressures (Chart 5). In particular motor vehicle and apparel prices shot higher, but our diffusion indicator, which measures the number of components with rising versus falling inflation rates, fell into negative territory. It is now widely known that over the past three years, U.S. government statistics softened systematically in the first quarter of the calendar year, while inflation reports tend to be strong in the opening months of the year. Recent consumer spending data continue to follow this yearly trend; PCE spending was on the soft side. We are not overly worried about this weak number, as the bulk of data from other sources continues to paint a much more upbeat picture. For example, the ISM manufacturing and services surveys ticked higher again in February (Chart 6). Respondents' comments were very upbeat. 17 out of 18 industries reported growth, and importantly, the more forward looking component of the survey - new orders - shot higher to near cyclical highs. Chart 5Benign Inflation Outlook Intact Chart 6Economic Momentum Intact In sum, the recent economic data reports continue to point to continued economic expansion. Q1 data disappointments have become the norm, but we continue to expect the economy to achieve real GDP growth greater than 2.5% in 2017. The bond market now expects the Fed to raise interest rates in March; Fed communication has certainly turned in that direction over the past few days. Although the timing of the next rate hike could indeed be pushed forward to March, our economic forecast for 2017 implies that more than three rate hikes this year is still unlikely. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 For more historical background on the politicization of monetary policy, please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?," April 15, 2013. Box 1 Potential New FOMC Members President Trump's view of the Fed appears to be flexible - he has expressed a wide range of opinions about the central bank and its Chair. Unlike Trump's inconsistent views about interest rates, he has been more steady in his belief that Fed positions should be filled by Republicans. Our bias is to expect President Trump's Federal Reserve nominations to be a greater mix of traditional versus non-traditional central banking profiles. Below, we present a shortlist of mainstream Republican economists that may fill a vacancy on the FOMC. It is worth highlighting that a majority of these names have a hawkish bias, which could help mitigate the risk of a more politicized Fed being inherently more inflationary. Our list is by no means exhaustive. John Taylor (Hawkish bias): Taylor is most widely known for The Taylor Rule. He has recently criticized the Fed for being behind the curve, although has not explicitly advocated for a policy change. He also served as Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. Kevin Warsh (Hawkish bias): A former Morgan Stanley banker (and BCA Conference speaker!) has been forthright with his views that higher interest rates would actually be good for the U.S. economy. Glenn Hubbard (Neutral): Hubbard is Dean of Columbia Business School and has advocated a "wait and see" approach for monetary policy in face of current fiscal uncertainty. Hubbard headed the Council of Economic Advisers under the Bush Administration. Tom Hoenig (Hawkish bias): Hoenig is current FDIC Vice-Chair and former Kansas City Fed President. In the latter position, he was a voting member of the FOMC. Throughout 2010, Hoenig was the lone dissenter on the committee, voting always in favor of a rate hike and for the Fed to move away from ultra-accommodative policy. He is also a harsh critic of "too big to fail".