Commodities & Energy Sector

Highlights Several economic and financial market indicators point to a budding downtrend in Chinese capital spending and its industrial sector. The recent underperformance of global mining, chemicals and machinery/industrials corroborate that capital spending in China is starting to slump. Shipments-to-inventory ratios for Korea and Taiwan also point to a relapse in Asian manufacturing. This is occurring as our global growth sentiment proxy sits on par with previous peaks, and investor positioning in EM and commodities is overextended. Stay put on EM. Markets with currency pegs to the U.S. dollar, such as the Gulf states and Hong Kong, will face tightening local liquidity. Share prices in these markets have probably topped out. Feature On the surface, EM equities, currencies and local bond and credit markets are still trading well. However, there are several economic indicators and financial variables that herald negative surprises for global and Chinese growth. In particular: China's NBS manufacturing PMI new orders and backlogs of orders have relapsed in the past several months. Chart I-1 illustrates the annual change in new orders and backlogs of orders to adjust for seasonality. The measure leads industrial profits, and presently foreshadows a slowdown going forward. Furthermore, the average of NBS manufacturing PMI, new orders, and backlog orders also points to a potential relapse in industrial metals prices in general as well as mainland steel and iron ore prices (Chart I-2). The message from Charts I-1 and I-2 is that the recent weakness in iron ore and steel prices could mark the beginning of a downtrend in Chinese capital spending. While supply cuts could limit downside in steel prices, it would be surprising if demand weakness does not affect steel prices at all.1 Chart I-1China: Slowdown Has Further To Run China: Slowdown Has Further To Run China: Slowdown Has Further To Run Chart I-2Industrial Metals Prices Have Topped Out Industrial Metals Prices Have Topped Out Industrial Metals Prices Have Topped Out Although China's money and credit have been flagging potential economic weakness for a while, the recent manufacturing PMI data from the National Bureau of Statistics finally confirmed an impending deceleration in industrial activity and ensuing corporate profit disappointment. Our credit and fiscal spending impulses continue to point to negative growth surprises in capital spending. The latter is corroborated by the weakening Komatsu's Komtrax index, which measures the average hours of machine work per unit in China (Chart I-3). In both Korea and Taiwan, the overall manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratios have dropped, heralding material weakness in both countries' export volumes (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Signs Of Weakness In Chinese Construction Signs Of Weakness In Chinese Construction Signs Of Weakness In Chinese Construction Chart I-4Asia Exports Are Slowing Asia Exports Are Slowing Asia Exports Are Slowing Notably, global cyclical equity sectors that are leveraged to China's capital spending such as materials, industrials and energy have all recently underperformed the global benchmark (Chart I-5). Some of their sub-sectors such as machinery, mining and chemicals have also begun to underperform (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Cyclicals Have ##br##Begun Underperforming... Global Cyclicals Have Begun Underperforming... Global Cyclicals Have Begun Underperforming... Chart I-6...Including Machinery ##br##And Chemical Stocks ...Including Machinery And Chemical Stocks ...Including Machinery And Chemical Stocks Among both global and U.S. traditional cyclicals, only the technology sector is outperforming the benchmark. However, we do not think tech should be treated as a cyclical sector, at least for now. In brief, the underperformance of global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors following last month's equity market correction corroborate that China's capital spending is beginning to slump. Notably, this is occurring as our global growth sentiment proxy rests on par with its previous apexes (Chart I-7). Previous tops in this proxy for global growth sentiment have historically coincided with tops in EM EPS net revisions, as shown in this chart. Chart I-7Global Growth Sentiment: As Good As It Gets Global Growth Sentiment: As Good As It Gets Global Growth Sentiment: As Good As It Gets All told, we may be finally entering a meaningful slowdown in China that will dampen commodities prices and EM corporate earnings. The latter are still very strong but EPS net revisions have rolled over and turned negative again (Chart I-8). Chart I-8EM EPS Net Revisions Have Plummeted EM EPS Net Revisions Have Plummeted EM EPS Net Revisions Have Plummeted EM share prices typically lead EPS by about nine months. In 2016, EM stocks bottomed in January-February, yet EPS did not begin to post gains until December 2016. Even if EM corporate profits are to contract in the fourth quarter of this year, EM share prices, being forward looking, will likely begin to wobble soon. Poor EM Equity Breadth There is also evidence of poor breadth in the EM equity universe, especially compared to the U.S. equity market. First, the rally in the EM equally-weighted index - where all individual stocks have equal weights - has substantially lagged the market cap-weighted index since mid 2017. This suggests that only a few large-cap companies have contributed a non-trivial share of capital gains. Second, the EM equal-weighted stock index's and EM small-caps' relative share prices versus their respective U.S. counterparts have fallen rather decisively in the past six weeks (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). While the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes has not declined that much, it has still rolled over (Chart I-9, bottom panel). We compare EM equity performance with that of the U.S. because DM ex-U.S. share prices themselves have been rather sluggish. In fact, DM ex-U.S. share prices have barely rebounded since the February correction. Third, EM technology stocks have begun underperforming their global peers (Chart I-10). This is a departure from the dynamics that prevailed last year, when a substantial share of EM outperformance versus DM equities was attributed to EM tech outperformance versus their DM counterparts and tech's large weight in the EM benchmark. Chart I-9EM Versus U.S. Equities: Relative ##br##Performance Is Reversing EM Versus U.S. Equities: Relative Performance Is Reversing EM Versus U.S. Equities: Relative Performance Is Reversing Chart I-10EM Tech Has Started ##br##Underperforming DM Tech EM Tech Has Started Underperforming DM Tech EM Tech Has Started Underperforming DM Tech Finally, the relative advance-decline line between EM versus U.S. bourses has been deteriorating (Chart I-11). This reveals that EM equity breadth - the advance-decline line - is substantially worse relative to the U.S. Chart I-11EM Versus U.S.: Relative Equity Breadth Is Very Poor EM Versus U.S.: Relative Equity Breadth Is Very Poor EM Versus U.S.: Relative Equity Breadth Is Very Poor Bottom Line: Breadth of EM equity performance versus DM/U.S. has worsened considerably. This bodes ill for the sustainability of EM outperformance versus DM/U.S. We continue to recommend an underweight EM versus DM position within global equity portfolios. Three Pillars Of EM Stocks EM equity performance is by and large driven by three sectors: technology, banks (financials) and commodities. Table I-1 illustrates that technology, financials and commodities (energy and materials) account for 66% of the EM MSCI market cap and 75% of MSCI EM total (non-diluted) corporate earnings. Therefore, getting the outlook of these sectors right is crucial to the EM equity call. Table I-1EM Equity Sectors: Earnings & Market Cap Weights EM: Disguised Risks EM: Disguised Risks Technology Four companies - Alibaba, Tencent, Samsung and TSMC - account for 17% of EM and 58% of EM technology market cap, respectively. This sector can be segregated into hardware tech (Samsung and TSMC) and "new concept" stocks (Alibaba and Tencent). We do not doubt that new technologies will transform many industries, and there will be successful companies that profit enormously from this process. Nevertheless, from a top-down perspective, we can offer little insight on whether EM's "new concept" stocks such as Alibaba and Tencent are cheap or expensive, nor whether their business models are proficient. Further, these and other global internet/social media companies' revenues are not driven by business cycle dynamics, making top-down analysis less imperative in forecasting their performance. We can offer some insight for technology hardware companies such as Samsung and TSMC. Chart I-12 demonstrates that semiconductor shipment-to-inventory ratios have rolled over decisively in both Korea and Taiwan. In addition, semiconductor prices have softened of late (Chart I-13) Together, this raises a red flag for technology hardware stocks in Asia. Chart I-12Asia's Semiconductor Industry Asia's Semiconductor Industry Asia's Semiconductor Industry Chart I-13Semiconductor Prices: A Soft Spot? Semiconductor Prices: A Soft Spot? Semiconductor Prices: A Soft Spot? Finally, Chart I-14 compares the current run-up in U.S. FANG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) with the Nasdaq mania in the 1990s. An equal-weighted average stock price index of FANG has risen by 10-fold in the past four and a half years. Chart I-14U.S. FANG Stocks Now ##br##And 1990s Nasdaq Mania U.S. FANG Stocks Now And 1990s Nasdaq Mania U.S. FANG Stocks Now And 1990s Nasdaq Mania A similar 10-fold increase was also registered by the Nasdaq top 100 stocks in the 1990s over eight years (Chart I-14). While this is certainly not a scientific approach, the comparison helps put the rally in "hot" technology stocks into proper historical perspective. The main take away here is that even by bubble standards, the recent acceleration in "new concept" stocks has been too fast. That said, it is impossible to forecast how long any mania will persist. This has been and remains a major risk to our investment strategy of being negative on EM stocks. In sum, there is little visibility in EM "new concept" tech stocks. Yet Asia's manufacturing cycle is rolling over, entailing downside risks to tech hardware businesses. Putting all this together, we conclude that it is unlikely that EM tech stocks will be able to drive the EM rally and outperformance in 2018 as they did in 2017. Banks We discussed the outlook for EM bank stocks in our February 14 report,2 and will not delve into additional details here. In brief, several countries' banks have boosted their 2017 profits by reducing their NPL provisions. This has artificially boosted profits and spurred investors to bid up bank equity prices. We believe banks in a number of EM countries are meaningfully under-provisioned and will have to augment their NPL provisions. The latter will hurt their profits and constitutes a major risk for EM bank share prices. Energy And Materials The outlook for absolute performance of these sectors is contingent on commodities prices. Industrial metals prices are at risk of slower capex in China. The mainland accounts for 50% of global demand for all industrial metals. Oil prices are at risk from traders' record-high net long positions in oil futures, according to CFTC data (Chart I-15, top panel). Traders' net long positions in copper are also elevated, according to the data from the same source (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Hence, it may require only some U.S. dollar strength and negative news out of China for these commodities prices to relapse. Chart I-15Traders' Net Long Positions In ##br##Oil And Copper Are Very Elevated Traders' Net Long Positions In Oil And Copper Are Very Elevated Traders' Net Long Positions In Oil And Copper Are Very Elevated How do we incorporate the improved balance sheets of materials and energy companies into our analysis? If and as commodities prices slide, share prices of commodities producers will deflate in absolute terms. However, this does not necessarily mean they will underperform the overall equity benchmark. Relative performance dynamics also depend on the performance of other sectors. Commodities companies could outperform the overall equity benchmark amid deflating commodities prices if other equity sectors drop more. In brief, the improved balance sheets of commodities producers may be reflected in terms of their relative resilience amid falling commodities prices but will still not preclude their share prices from declining in absolute terms. Bottom Line: If EM bank stocks and commodities prices relapse as we expect, the overall EM equity index will likely experience a meaningful selloff and underperform the DM/U.S. benchmarks. Exchange Rate Pegs Versus U.S. Dollar With the U.S. dollar depreciating in the past 12 months, pressure on exchange rate regimes that peg their currencies to the dollar has subsided. These include but are not limited to Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As a result, these countries' interest rate differentials versus the U.S. have plunged (Chart I-16). In short, domestic interest rates in these markets have risen much less than U.S. short rates. This has kept domestic liquidity conditions easier than they otherwise would have been. However, maneuvering room for these central banks is narrowing. In Hong Kong, the exchange rate is approaching the lower bound of its narrow band (Chart I-17). As it touches 7.85, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) will have no choice but to tighten liquidity and push up interest rates. Chart I-16Markets With U.S. Dollar Peg: ##br##Policymakers' Maneuvering Window Is Closing Markets With U.S. Dollar Peg: Policymakers' Maneuvering Window Is Closing Markets With U.S. Dollar Peg: Policymakers' Maneuvering Window Is Closing Chart I-17Hong Kong: Interest ##br##Rates Are Heading Higher Hong Kong: Interest Rates Are Heading Higher Hong Kong: Interest Rates Are Heading Higher In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the monetary authorities have used the calm in their foreign exchange markets over the past year to not match the rise in U.S. short rates (Chart I-18A and Chart I-18B). However, with their interest rate differentials over U.S. now at zero, these central banks will have no choice but to follow U.S. rates to preserve their currency pegs.3 Chart I-18ASaudi Arabian Interest Rates Will Rise The UAE Interest Rates Will Rise The UAE Interest Rates Will Rise Chart I-18BThe UAE Interest Rates Will Rise Saudi Arabian Interest Rates Will Rise Saudi Arabian Interest Rates Will Rise If U.S. interest rates were to move above local rates in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, those countries' currencies will come under considerable depreciation pressure because capital will move from local currencies into U.S. dollars. Hence, if U.S. short rates move higher, which is very likely, local rates in these and other Gulf countries will have to rise if their exchange rate pegs are to be preserved. Neither the Hong Kong dollar nor Gulf currencies are at risk of devaluation. The monetary authorities there have enough foreign currency reserves to defend their respective pegs. Nevertheless, the outcome will be domestic liquidity tightening in the Gulf's and Hong Kong's banking system. In addition, potentially lower oil prices will weigh on Gulf bourses and China's slowdown will hurt growth and equity sentiment in Hong Kong. All in all, equity markets in Gulf countries and Hong Kong have probably seen their best in terms of absolute performance. Potential negative external shocks and higher interest rates due to Fed tightening have darkened the outlook for these bourses. Bottom Line: Local liquidity in Gulf markets and Hong Kong is set to tighten. Share prices in these markets have probably topped out. However, given these equity markets have massively underperformed the EM equity benchmark, they are unlikely to underperform when the overall EM index falls. Hence, we do not recommend underweighting these bourses within an EM equity portfolio. For asset allocators, a neutral or overweight allocation to these bourses is warranted. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's "De-Capacity" Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017; the link is available on page 16. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "EM Bank Stocks Hold The Key," dated February 14, 2018; the link is available on page 16. 3 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "United Arab Emirates: Domestic Tailwinds, External Headwinds," dated March 12, 2018. The link is available on fms.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

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

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

Highlights Global trade data we track as indicators of current and expected commodity demand - particularly EM import volumes - will provide a lift to oil prices over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Against this still-positive backdrop, heightened geopolitical tensions are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war - now a factor following the Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric - would reduce our oil demand forecasts. That said, our Geopolitical Strategy team notes past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD, which would be bullish commodities.1 Energy: Overweight. Even though it is not a surprise, the anti-trade rhetoric coming out of Washington is a wake-up call for oil markets. Trade is deeply entwined with EM income growth, which drives commodity demand globally. A shock to global trade would be a shock to aggregate demand and oil demand, hence oil prices. Base Metals: Neutral. President Trump announced 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum last week. Markets are fretting over the possibility of a full-blown trade war if the U.S. zeroes in on China, as it apparently is doing, and Washington's allies impose retaliatory tariffs, should the Trump administration level tariffs on their exports.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. In a series of tweets earlier this week, President Trump suggested concessions on steel and aluminum tariffs to Canada and Mexico in exchange for concessions on NAFTA. Neither Mexico nor Canada supported this link. Feature Our short-term models of global trade volumes continue to indicate EM imports - a key variable in our analysis of industrial commodity demand - will continue to grow (Chart of The Week).3 This will be supportive of commodity prices generally, particularly oil, in 1H18. In 2H18 and beyond, the outlook is getting cloudier. And more volatile. A fundamental underpinning of our oil-demand expectation for this year and next is that a slowdown in China in 2H18 will be offset by a pickup in EM and DM aggregate demand - and trade volumes - ex-China, in line with the IMF's expectation for EM and DM growth this year and next (Chart 2).4 DM markets and India likely will take up the slack created by China's slight slowdown. In fact, India already is moving out ahead: Based on official data, India's economy grew at a 7.2% rate in December, topping China's 6.8% rate, according to a Reuters survey at the end of February.5 Chart 1EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow Chart 2EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Import Volumes Are Important To Oil Prices EM demand drives global oil demand. Over the long haul, the relationship between oil prices and EM import volumes has been strong: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000 (Chart 3).6 These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes. All else equal (i.e., assuming supply is unchanged), this increases oil prices (via higher demand). The biggest weight in the EM import volume variable is China's imports, so the sustainability of the current Chinese growth is important, as is how smoothly policymakers there slow the economy in 2H18 as we expect. Chinese imports are sensitive to industrial output, which is captured by the Li Keqiang index, global PMIs, and FX markets (Chart 4). Provided policymakers can maintain income growth as the country pivots - once again - away from heavy industrial-export-led growth to consumer- and services-led growth, oil demand will not be materially affected, and should continue growing. At present, China's import volume growth has leveled off as Chart 4 shows, indicating income growth is holding up. China recently guided toward a GDP growth target of 6.5% for this year. Given they have a solid track record of achieving such targets, this indicates that they do not expect a severe slowdown. However, a hard economic landing - always a risk in transforming such a huge economy - would force us to reconsider our growth estimates. Chart 3EM Imports Supportive Of Prices EM Imports Supportive Of Prices EM Imports Supportive Of Prices Chart 4Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off In our analysis, we do not yet have enough information to determine whether the Trump administration will launch a trade war with China. The impact of President Trump's proposed steel and aluminum tariffs on China is de minimis: Chinese exports of these commodities to the U.S. amount to less than 0.2% of China's total exports, as our colleagues at BCA Research's China Investment Strategy note in this week's analysis.7 The big risk from these tariffs lies in what happens next. If they are the first step in additional tariffs directed at industries far more important to China, they could invite retaliation.8 If the recently announced tariffs expand to a global trade war - already the EU, Canada and Mexico have indicated they will not sit idly by while tariffs are imposed on exporters in their countries - the threat to world trade, and EM imports in particular, rises considerably. This would threaten crude oil prices. Trade Wars And Oil Flows Other than exports from the U.S., which could be targeted by states retaliating against tariffs, it is difficult to imagine the flow of oil being affected by a trade war in the short term: Oil is an internationally traded commodity, and traders adapt quickly to disruptions - e.g., re-routing crude flows in response to events affecting production, consumption, inventories or shipping.9 However, it does not require much of an intellectual leap to see EM trade volumes being significantly impacted by a trade war via the slowing in income growth globally. Such a turn of events would reduce aggregate demand in that part of the market - EM - that is responsible for the bulk of commodity demand growth. Falling EM trade volumes would be the natural result of falling incomes. This would be disinflationary, as well, which is not unexpected (Chart 5). We have found a long-term relationship with strong co-movement properties between EM import volumes and U.S. CPI and PCE inflation indexes. Our modelling indicates a 1% decrease (increase) in EM import volumes translates into a decrease (increase) in these U.S. inflation indexes of 15 to 20bp with a 6- to 12-month lag. These are non-trivial quantities: For instance, a decline in EM import volumes of 10% or more could shave as much as 2 points from U.S. inflation (Chart 6). Such a disinflation impulse once again coming from the real economy would, in all likelihood, force the Fed to throttle back on its interest-rate normalization policy or reverse course. Chart 5Lower EM Import Volumes##BR##Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Lower EM Import Volumes Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Lower EM Import Volumes Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Chart 6EM Trade Volumes##BR##Over Time EM Trade Volumes Over Time EM Trade Volumes Over Time Volatility Likely To Pick Up As we noted above, our Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) colleagues point out the threat of tariffs and quotas has been used by U.S. administrations in the past to get systemically important central banks to support a weaker USD.10 The end game always is to spur exports to boost economic growth. The downside risk from trade wars discussed above is fairly obvious. Not so obvious is the upside commodity-price risk arising from a depreciation in the USD, which falls out of a strategy of using the threat of tariffs to ultimately weaken the USD. Our GPS colleagues quote Paul Volcker's summary of a similar gambit by Richard Nixon, who also ran a mercantilist presidential campaign in the late 1960s, to ultimately weaken the USD: The conclusion reached by some that the United States shrugged off responsibilities for the dollar and for leadership in preserving an open world order does seem to me a misinterpretation of the facts ... The devaluation itself was the strongest argument we had to repel protectionism. The operating premise throughout was that a necessary realignment of exchange rates and other measures consistent with more open trade and open capital markets could accomplish the necessary balance-of-payments adjustment. It is impossible to say whether such a depreciation is the Trump administration's end-game. However, if it is, this would be bullish commodities generally, gold and base metals in particular. For oil, a weaker USD would be bullish, but, as we have shown recently, fundamentals now drive oil price formation.11 Bottom Line: Current and expected EM import volumes indicate oil prices will continue to be supported by rising demand over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Still, heightened geopolitical tensions brought on by bellicose trade signaling from the U.S. are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war would force us to lower our forecast for Brent and WTI crude oil from our current $74 and $70/bbl expectations for this year. However, as our Geopolitical Strategy team notes, past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD. Should this turn out to be the Trump administration's strategy, the weaker USD would be bullish for commodity prices. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," published March 6, 2018. It is available at gps.bceresearch.com. Our colleagues note, "Import tariffs ought to be bullish for the greenback, given that they lead to higher domestic policy rates as inflationary pressures rise (and not just passing ones). However, as the previous two examples of U.S. protectionism teach us, the U.S. uses threats of tariffs so that it can get a cheaper USD. From Washington's perspective, both accomplish the same thing. Intriguingly, the U.S. dollar has sold off on the most recent news of protectionism." (Emphasis added.) 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," published March 1, 2018, particularly the discussion beginning on p. 7. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our 3-month ahead projections are based on two components: (1) the first principal component of a basket of currencies exposed to global growth; and (2) lagged U.S. monetary variables. Our modeling shows that exchange rates are forward-looking variables containing information of future fundamentals. Therefore, by selecting currencies exposed to global and EM growth, this allows us to run short-term forecasts of EM import volumes. The analysis is also confirmed using Granger-causality tests. 4 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 22, 2018, World Economic Outlook Update, which notes its revised forecast calling for stronger global growth reflects improved DM growth expectations. 5 Please see "India regains status as fastest growing major economy," published by reuters.com on February 28, 2018. 6 These results fall out of co-integration regressions. 7 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation," published March 7, 2018. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. See also footnote 2 above. 8 President Trump reportedly is considering broadening the tariffs on a range of Chinese imports and limiting Chinese investment in the U.S., to punish the country for "its alleged theft of intellectual property," according to Bloomberg. Please see "U.S. Considers Broad Curbs on Chinese Imports, Takeovers," published by Bloomberg.com, March 6, 2018. 9 The U.S. is exporting a little over 1.5mm b/d of crude oil and 4.6mm b/d of refined products at present, according to EIA data. A drawn-out trade war resulting in U.S. oil exports being hit with retaliatory tariffs or quotas could derail the expansion of crude exports brought on by the growth in shale-oil output in America. The IEA expects the U.S. to account for the largest increase in crude exports in the world between now and 2040, "propelling the region above Russia, Africa and South America in the global rankings." This has the effect of reducing net U.S. crude imports to 3mm b/d by 2040 from 7mm b/d at present. An increase in product exports - from 2mm b/d to 4mm b/d - makes the U.S. a net exporter of crude and product, based on the IEA's analysis. The largest demand for crude imports comes from Asia over this period, which grows 9mm b/d to 30mm b/d in total. Please see "WEO Analysis: A sea change in the global oil trade," published by the IEA February 23, 2018, on its website at iea.org. 10 We urge our readers to pick up BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report cited in footnote 1 above, which lays out our GPS team's analytical framework regarding trade wars. They note, "If constraints to trade protectionism were considerable, Trump would not have the ability to surprise the markets with bellicose rhetoric on a whim. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy cannot predict individual triggers for events. But our framework allows us to elucidate the constraint context in which policymakers operate. On protectionism, Trump operates in a poorly constrained context. This is why we have been alarmist on trade since day one." 11 We found that the more backwardated oil forward curves are the less impact the USD has on the evolution of prices. Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published on February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook

Highlights We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a material correction. Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Are tariffs on aluminum and steel the start of a trade spat or a trade war? Feature Fears of a trade war and a hawkish tone from Fed Chair Jay Powell at his first Humphrey Hawkins testimony to Congress pushed the U.S. equity market lower last week. The ten-year Treasury yield barely budged however, buffeted by a more hawkish Fed on one side and a trade-induced slowdown in global growth on the other. The dollar was modestly higher last week, but oil and gold prices moved lower. The S&P 500's 4% loss in February was the worst single month since October 2016 and worst February since 2009. Both investment-grade and high-yield credit spreads widened last week, and have yet to return to their late January lows. Moreover, at 22, the VIX remained elevated relative to start of the year, consistent with our view that markets have entered a more volatile, late-cycle phase. With the 2.8% run-up in the S&P 500 since the February 8 low, investors are less concerned that the early February pullback in risk assets was a signal that the equity bull market is over and a recession is right around the corner. Nonetheless, some clients with a more strategic outlook are considering paring back risk now. Others want to know how to protect gains while still participating in the bullish tone for the market BCA expects in the next 12 months. Our Yield and Protector portfolios might provide a way for investors to protect against the downside while still participating in the S&P 500. Preparing For A Pullback BCA recommends investors stay overweight on equities and U.S. spread product, but expects that positions should be moved to neutral later this year and then to underweight sometime in 2019.1 Long-term investors should already consider paring back their exposures to both asset classes given that valuations are stretched. We have periodically recommended that a variety of investments be added as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against a material correction in equities. We recently highlighted two forms of insurance: our Yield and Protector Portfolios. We introduced the Yield Portfolio in October 20142 and first discussed the Protector Portfolio in October 2015.3 This week, we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios with a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. The Yield Portfolio (YP) emphasizes "high quality carry", along with some protection via TIPS (25% of the Portfolio), if inflation begins to surprise on the upside after investors are conditioned to expect only deflation shocks. The YP performs well in an environment of slow nominal growth, no recession and gradual interest-rate hikes. On the other hand, the Protector Portfolio (PP) is designed to provide insulation against both deflationary (gold and trade-weighted dollar) and inflationary (TIPS) tail risks. Therefore, the PP may underperform risk assets for a time if tail risks keep receding. Still, it has done well during the equity rally and conservative investors should consider adopting it. As discussed in the section below, our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our Yield and Protector Portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 1, 2 and 3 present the rolling one-year beta and alpha of each strategy versus the S&P 500. Alpha is presented as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (versus short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is also referred to as "Jensen's alpha." Chart 1S&P 500 Defensives##BR##A Modestly Low Beta Option S&P 500 Defensives A Modestly Low Beta Option S&P 500 Defensives A Modestly Low Beta Option Chart 2A Lower Beta##BR##Than Defensives A Lower Beta Than Defensives A Lower Beta Than Defensives Chart 3A Beta Near Zero,##BR##And Positive Alpha A Beta Near Zero, And Positive Alpha A Beta Near Zero, And Positive Alpha Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios versus the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our PP had a negative correlation to the broad market until earlier this year, when it turned slightly positive. BCA's YP is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 1). Note that our protector portfolio is composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 1A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? After accounting for their lower betas, all three portfolios have outperformed the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. However, the three portfolios have experienced a relative decline versus the S&P 500 since Trump's election. This has occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed because they failed to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. We draw two important conclusions from Charts 1, 2 and 3 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our YP and PP compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance against a sell-off in the equity market rather than the latter. Secondly, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets in the past few years. However, since late 2017 when investors began to significantly upgrade the prospects for global growth and U.S. corporate profits, all three portfolios struggled to outperform the S&P 500 on a risk-adjusted basis. BCA's forecast implies that these portfolios may continue to struggle in the next year or so. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. Our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance in the coming year should back our YP and PP over a defensive-sector allocation. We would likely extend this recommendation to all clients if there is any material progression towards the sell-off triggers identified in the Bank Credit Analyst's February 2018 publication.4 Bottom Line: Investors seeking protection against a potential equity market sell-off should look to our Yield and Protector Portfolios over defensive-sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we may do so if our key sell-off triggers are breached. Gold Bugged Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. The yellow metal is supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks and greater volatility in equity markets.5 However, the higher inflation and inflation expectations will be countered by Fed rate hikes, which will boost the U.S. dollar and lift real rates in our base case. Strategically, we expect that gold will provide a good hedge against any downturn in equities when the bull market turns bear in 2H19. Chart 4 shows that the price of gold in real terms is still very expensive. On a nominal basis, gold is at the top end of a trading channel initiated in early 2012 (Chart 5). There has been a significant gap between the model value and the actual price of gold for the past four years. The real price of gold remains elevated, although inflation has been well contained. Chart 4Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Chart 5Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel However, the macro environment BCA envisions for 2018 is also supportive for gold (Table 2). Gold tends to perform well when oil prices rise and as the 2/10 Treasury curve steepens. Moreover, gold prices tend to go up when the U.S. economy benefits from fiscal thrust and tax cuts. Furthermore, the soundings on the February ISM manufacturing index support higher gold prices. When the headline index is above 60 as it was in February (60.8), gold climbs by an average of 31%. Even 12 months after ISM is above 60, gold returns are over 20%. The elevated level of ISM new orders (64.2) and price (74.2) indices in February also suggest solid increases for gold. Finally, gold prices climb in the late stages of an economic expansion, such as the current one that began in 2009.6 Even so, our 6 to 12-month view on gold is that it will take its cues from Fed policy and policy expectations. The Fed is not behind the curve on inflation, and inflation expectations and measured inflation remain low. Our CPI and PCE models (Chart 6) show only a modest acceleration in inflation by year-end, which will be sufficient to keep the Fed on track this year as it continues to shrink its balance sheet and boost rates four times. Thus, there is no pressing need to hold gold as a hedge against inflation in the next year. Nonetheless, for those investors too concerned about a pullback that turns into a correction or a bear market, we note that gold has a 33% weight in our Protector Portfolio. Table 2Favorable Macro Backdrop For Gold A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? Chart 6BCA's Inflation Models Show Only##BR##Modest Acceleration Through Year-End BCA's Inflation Models Show Only Modest Acceleration Through Year-End BCA's Inflation Models Show Only Modest Acceleration Through Year-End Bottom Line: Gold is expensive in real terms relative to a set of fundamentals that have explained its real price since 1970. However, it may have a better value on a strategic basis or as part of a portfolio designed to protect against falling equity prices. Moreover, our macro backdrop forecast for the next 12 months supports higher gold prices. Keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Trade Off BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has long argued that two sources of geopolitical risk this year are China's trade surplus and Trump's position on trade relations with China, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, the view is that weak poll numbers may lead Trump to trigger trade disputes with important trading partners such as China, Mexico and Canada. However, our geopolitical analysts also point out that investors should not confuse a trade spat with a trade war. There are very few legal or constitutional constraints on Trump over trade issues (Table 3). It will be his decision whether to adopt sweeping tariffs (trade war) as opposed to a more targeted approach (trade spat). Clearly, the former is more disruptive and raises more uncertainty, so this is the key distinction to keep in mind. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush (II) and Obama all imposed temporary tariffs on items (including steel and aluminum, and including by citing national security concerns) without triggering a trade war. Late last week, Trump indicated that he would announce tariffs on steel and aluminum this week. He implied that he would go for a broad-based approach of penalizing all steel and aluminum imports, which points toward the more aggressive approach. But the details (whether he exempts U.S. allies and partners or narrows the scope of goods) will not be certain until he issues his official proclamation. Table 3Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? Steel and aluminum get the headlines, but account for only a small share of U.S. trade and GDP7 (Chart 7). BCA is more concerned about the Administration's stance on more deeper issues, like the WTO, NAFTA, or (in China's case) intellectual property and state-owned enterprises.8 The issues here are harder to quantify, have few precedents, and have more structural and ideological issues which are at stake. The U.S. has a massive trade surplus in services and in intellectual property,9 so a prolonged disruption would pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy, at least in the short term. Trump's decision on intellectual property trade with China is due on August 12, but could occur earlier. BCA's stance on U.S.-China relations is bearish in the long run.10 We place high odds on an eventual trade war, but the timing is a tougher call. Investors should not view China's proportional retaliation on an item-by-item basis as the start of a trade war. BCA's view is that China's leadership will try to offer reforms and investment opportunities to pacify Trump. However, there is a risk either that China offers no reforms (in which case Xi Jinping's rampant Communism exacerbates trade conflicts) or that Trump may introduce broad sweeping measures that give China no choice but to respond in kind, leading to a trade war. Our Geopolitical Strategy service notes that the probability of Trump abrogating NAFTA is as high as 50%. The seventh round of NAFTA talks concludes this week; an eighth round is scheduled for late March. Negotiations could drag on right to the Mexican election on July 1, but if they are not looking more optimistic by this spring then the risk of the U.S. (or Mexico) walking away will rise. The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (Chart 8). Chart 7Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Chart 8U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Bottom Line: Elevated trade tensions with China,11 Canada and Mexico are near-term risks to global growth. From now through April could be a decisive time for the Trump Administration with China and NAFTA. We are bearish on U.S.-China relations in the long term. If Trump abandons NAFTA, the implications for the U.S. economy would be muted, although U.S. inflation may push higher. Such a decision would also send a clear signal to other key U.S. allies. However, if Trump stands by NAFTA, then it signals that he has sided with the establishment on trade. This would be bullish for risk assets and would lower geopolitical risk premia. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," published February 23, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Ice Storm", published October 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Tenuous Relief Rally", published on October 12, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, February 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Gold Still Shines Despite Threat Of Higher Inflation", published February 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View", published October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease", published March 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back", published January 31, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?", published June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", published January 18, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China", published February 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Fiscal Stimulus To Prolong The Expansion The market swoon in early February should not induce investors to lower risk. The stock market correction (the first for almost two years) was triggered by a couple of inflation and wage readings that came in slightly above expectations, and was exacerbated by some technical factors such as automated trading by volatility-target funds. But, significantly, it was not accompanied by the usual signals of rising risk aversion: for example, credit spreads barely widened and the gold price was stable (Chart 1). Volatility is likely to remain high but, as our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently found, the VIX has not been a useful indicator of recessions and bear markets: many times over the past 30 years it has spiked higher without risk assets producing negative returns over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 2).1 Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Chart 2Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Fiscal policy moves in the U.S. make us believe, rather, that the current economic expansion will last longer than we previously forecast. A combination of tax cuts plus recent spending proposals (including $165 billion on the military and $45 billion on disaster relief) will boost GDP by about 0.8% of GDP this year and 1.3% next, compared to the IMF's earlier forecast of a fiscal contraction this year (Chart 3).2 Add to that the boost from the 8% trade-weighted depreciation of the U.S. dollar over the past 12 months (which should add 0.3% to growth over two years), and it is difficult to imagine U.S. GDP growth turning down any time soon. Accordingly, BCA has shifted its recession call from the second half of 2019 to sometime in 2020. Of course, this is not all good news. The U.S. budget deficit is likely to increase to 5½% of GDP in 2019, which will put upward pressure on interest rates. The fiscal impulse will hit an economy already at full capacity, and so will be inflationary. The scenario we envisage is boom-and-bust, leading to a nastier recession than we had previously expected. Nonetheless, the boost to growth should be positive for risk assets over the next 12 months. Our model of earnings growth now suggests that U.S. EPS should continue to grow at close to a 20% rate for the rest of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Boost To U.S. Growth Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 4Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too How quickly will the Fed push back against the potentially inflationary implications of this higher growth? We have found a remarkable turnaround in investors' perceptions of inflation over the past few weeks. Whereas last year most argued that structural forces (online shopping, the gig economy etc.) meant that inflation would stay depressed, now many worry that it will quickly shoot above 2% and force the Fed to tighten policy aggressively. This has caused them to over-react, for example, to the (rather obvious) statement from the last FOMC minutes that "participants noted that a stronger outlook for economic growth raised the likelihood that further gradual policy firming would be appropriate." Our view remains that core PCE inflation - the Fed's favorite measure - is likely to move back gradually to 2% (from 1.5% currently), but not accelerate dramatically. Unit labor costs remain subdued (Chart 5), the continued rise in the participation rate means there is more slack in the labor market than implied by headline unemployment (Chart 6), and inflation expectations remain low. This should allow new Fed chair Jerome Powell to continue to withdraw accommodation at a measured pace. The market has already priced in that the Fed will tighten this year at least in line with its dots (Chart 7). We expect four, rather than the Fed's projected three, hikes this year, but this should not be too hard for the market to absorb. Chart 5Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Chart 6 Still Some Slack In Labor Market Still Some Slack In Labor Market Still Some Slack In Labor Market Chart 7Market Has Caught Up To The Fed Market Has Caught Up To The Fed Market Has Caught Up To The Fed We have for some months now advised long-term, more risk-averse investors to consider dialing back risk, and the volatility in February was a good example of why. We would expect further such bouts of volatility. However, with a recession still probably two years away, and a combination of stronger-than-expected growth and a Fed reluctant to accelerate tightening, the next 12 months should remain positive for equities and other risk assets. Fixed Income: We now expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield to rise to 3.3-3.5%. This will come from a further 40 BP increase in inflation expectations (taking them back to a level compatible with the Fed achieving its inflation target) plus a rise in the real yield, as markets start to price in the end of secular stagnation (Chart 8). The rise in global yields will be exacerbated by increasing net supply, as fiscal deficits rise and central banks wind down QE (Chart 9). We are, accordingly, underweight duration, and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. We will likely reduce our exposure to credit before we turn defensive on equities. But, for now, strong economic growth and higher oil prices mean spread product is likely to outperform government bonds. Chart 8Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Chart 9Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Currencies: Rising interest rate differentials have failed to cause the dollar to rally (Chart 10). FX markets are trading, rather, on valuations (the euro and yen are, indeed, undervalued), on current account positions (the euro zone and Japan have large surpluses), and on the narrative that U.S. twin deficits historically caused the dollar to weaken. Our FX strategists find this is true only when, as in 2001-3, U.S. real rates were falling; after the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, real rates rose, pushing up the dollar (Chart 11). The key, therefore, is how quickly the Fed reacts this time. The dollar currently has strong downward momentum (especially against the yen) and this could continue. But as global growth slows relative to the U.S., relative interest rates are likely to reassert themselves as a factor, causing the dollar to strengthen again. Chart 10Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Chart 11Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Equities: Given the macro environment, we continue to recommend pro-cyclical equity tilts, with overweights in higher beta markets such as the euro zone and Japan, and cyclical sectors such as financials, energy, and industrials. Our underweight on EM equities is based on the risk of a slowdown in China (where tighter financial conditions point to a slowing of the industrial sector, Chart 12), the possibility of a U.S. dollar rebound, and the vulnerability of highly leveraged foreign-currency EM borrowers to a rise in U.S. interest rates. Commodities: Our energy team has further revised up their oil price forecast, on expectations that the OPEC agreement will be extended, which will cause a greater draw-down in oil inventories (Chart 13).3 They see Brent crude averaging $74 a barrel this year, with spikes above $80. However, the response of the U.S. shale industry will begin to kick in, pushing the price down to below $60 by end-2019. We are neutral on industrial commodities, which will benefit from stronger global growth but are at risk in the event of dollar appreciation and slowdown in China. Chart 12Tighter Monetary Conditions In China Tighter Monetary Conditions in China Tighter Monetary Conditions in China Chart 13Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Please note that, due to the Easter holidays in some countries, the GAA Quarterly Portfolio will be published one day later than usual, on April 3. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Late Innings," dated 26 February 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 For details, please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2018," available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0: Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated 22 February 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Seasonal environmental restrictions on Chinese aluminum output are due to ease going into spring, which will restore some of the output taken off line when inefficient smelters were shuttered last year. Global demand likely will slow later this year, largely because we expect GDP growth in China, which accounts for more than half of global aluminum consumption, to moderate in 2H18. In addition, expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will contribute to the easing of a tight global balance, and take some of the pressure off prices, but we do not expect a significant move lower. We remain neutral. Energy: Overweight. Our long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/18 $70/bbl calls - recommended last week on the back of our updated price forecast - closed with a 3.1% gain on Tuesday. We took profits on our long 4Q19 $55/bbl Brent puts vs. short 4Q19 $50/bbl Brent puts, realizing a 20.7% gain since it was recommended January 18, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. We are expecting a secular increase in aluminum supplies this year, on the back of Chinese environmental policies and more difficult global trading conditions. Precious Metals: Gold markets awaited Fed Chair Powell's Humphrey-Hawkins testimony beginning Tuesday, as vice chair for financial supervision, Randal Quarles, warned U.S. economic growth could exceed expectations the day before. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Argentina's drought looks like it will stress that country's grain harvests, and tighten markets at the margin. Feature Chart of the WeekAluminum In Large Deficit Last Year Aluminum In Large Deficit Last Year Aluminum In Large Deficit Last Year Easing of winter supply restrictions in China, as well as tighter controls on U.S. aluminum imports, will dominate the aluminum market in the near term. In both cases, the net effect likely will be an increase in global supply. The latter would also support aluminum's price in the U.S. market - as measured by the U.S. Midwest premium. These events will ease the global physical deficit in aluminum, which last year came in at its widest since 1995 (Chart of the Week). The current tight conditions are driven by Beijing's elimination of overcapacity, which, along with environmental reform policies implemented last year, led to a reduction in China's output. The price dynamics that dominated the aluminum market over the past couple years will shift as a result. This already can be seen in the behavior of prices on the LME and the SHFE: LME prices have been gyrating around $2,200/MT, while SHFE prices have dipped by more than 5% since the beginning of the year. Unwinding China's Supply-Side Policies? At first blush, it may not be apparent China's primary aluminum production sector experienced significant changes last year. After stalling at 1% year-on-year (y/y) growth in 2016, output grew 1.2% y/y in 2017, a sharp deceleration from the 16% y/y average growth rates registered between 2010 and 2015. However, the annual gain masked a 10% y/y increase in output in 1H17, which was almost completely reversed by the negative impacts of China's environmental policies and its efforts to eliminate overcapacity. These policy-led initiatives ultimately caused output to fall 7% y/y in 2H17 (Chart 2). The resulting 1 mm MT of production cuts in the second half of last year reflects China's 2017 supply-side policies. Beijing's strategy is two-fold: Chart 2Sharp Fall In 2H17 Output From China ... Sharp Fall In 2H17 Output From China ... Sharp Fall In 2H17 Output From China ... Eliminate outdated and unlicensed capacity by forcing it to close. This has removed an estimated 3-4 mm MT of annual capacity. The policy targets capacity lacking proper building and expansion permits, as well as the smelters that do not meet strict environmental standards. However, not all the shutdowns are permanent. Among this shuttered capacity is 2 mm MT of outdated smelter capacity belonging to China Hongqiao, which the company plans to replace with new capacity.1 The other major supply-side policy implemented by Beijing last year is a restriction on smelter activity during the mid-November to mid-March period. As is the case in the steel sector, this winter-curtailment policy seeks to reduce pollution during the smog-prone winter months. Aluminum smelters in the cities targeted in the winter plan were ordered to cut output by ~ 30% during this period. This policy is expected to be an annually recurring event until 2020. However, while 3 mm MT of annualized capacity would have been closed during the winter if the full 30% curtailment target had been met, reports surfaced in mid-December that compliance was low, and suggested only ~ 0.6 mm MT of capacity (just 20% of the goal, or 6% of the curtailment target) had been closed.2 The total aluminum annual capacity affected by both the winter environmental curtailments and capacity-reduction policies implemented last year could potentially reach 7 mm MT. China's total smelting capacity was a reported 40 mm MT in 2016. Lower Chinese Production ... And Consumption On a year-on-year basis, global primary aluminum production has been falling since August. This is, for the most part, true on a month-on-month basis, as well. The 12-month moving average for global aluminum production peaked in July, and has been coming down consistently since then. Although 2017 production came in higher than the previous year, this is due to a ~ 6% y/y increase in the first half, which preceded a ~ 4% y/y decline in output in the second half of the year. These dynamics are driven by China, which accounts for 55% of global primary production. Chinese firms raised primary output in 1H17, which was followed by a sharp contraction in 2H17. Chinese primary aluminum production peaked in June, recording an all-time record of 2.98 mm MT before falling in the subsequent months. On the other hand, primary production from the rest of the world has remained largely unchanged over the past two years, at 26 mm MT. Data from the International Aluminum Institute shows month-on-month production increases in China in December and January; however, output is still lower vs. the same period a year earlier. Chinese production drove global aluminum production higher in the past, but falling output from the world's leading producer now is causing global primary aluminum supply to contract. The impact of China's supply curtailments has been muted by lower demand for the metal (Chart 3). Again, lower consumption has been driven by the top-demand market - China - which typically consumes ~ 55% of the primary metal. Chinese primary consumption and production each came down by more than 1 mm MT y/y in the second half of last year. Falling aluminum demand in China is consistent with a slowdown in Chinese automobile production as well as fixed asset investments in infrastructure and transportation (Chart 4). Furthermore, China's scrap aluminum imports increased in 2H17, reflecting a preference for the secondary metal as the price of primary aluminum increased. Chart 3... Coincided With Falling Chinese Consumption ... Coincided With Falling Chinese Consumption ... Coincided With Falling Chinese Consumption Chart 4Slowdown In Chinese Demand Slowdown In Chinese Demand Slowdown In Chinese Demand A Divergence In Global Dynamics ... Despite the improved balance in China, the global primary aluminum balance in the rest of the world recorded a large deficit last year - the largest since 1995 (Chart 5). While both consumption and production in China came down by more than 1 mm MT in 2H17, consumption in the rest of the world increased by ~ 0.4 mm MT, even as production remained largely unchanged. This tightened the global market, as more stringent aluminum production policies in China meant that there was no flooding of Chinese aluminum to ease the deficit. In fact, the world excluding China deficit is the largest at least since the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) started collecting data in 1995. ... Is Reflected In Inventory Dynamics This also coincides with rising aluminum stocks on the Shanghai Futures Exchange and falling inventory on the LME. In fact, Chinese aluminum imports have been falling and were down almost 30% y/y in 2H17. At the same time, Chinese net exports picked up slightly (Chart 6). Chart 5Record Aluminum Deficit Outside China Record Aluminum Deficit Outside China Record Aluminum Deficit Outside China Chart 6Chinese Net Exports On The Rise Chinese Net Exports On The Rise Chinese Net Exports On The Rise In response to lower output, LME inventories have been falling since 2Q14, and they continued their descent last year, ending 2017 at roughly the same level as mid-2008. On the other hand, stocks at the SHFE have been rising steeply since the beginning of last year and are at record highs (Chart 7). Whether the tight global market fundamentals will persist depends on whether China's outdated capacity cuts prove to be temporary or permanent. Chart 7Dynamics Reflected In Stock Changes Dynamics Reflected In Stock Changes Dynamics Reflected In Stock Changes U.S. Tariffs And Quotas Would Offset Tight Markets In what appears to be an effort to revive U.S. aluminum and steel production, the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into these domestic industries late last year. Last month, Commerce proposed tariffs and quotas that would impact all aluminum imports with the exception of aluminum scrap and aluminum powders. There appear to be two main objectives of this investigation: 1. Increase capacity utilization in the U.S. aluminum and steel industries; and 2. Penalize China for subsidizing its aluminum sector at the expense of those in other countries. Among the Commerce proposals: 1. A 7.7% tariff on all aluminum imports to the U.S. 2. A 23.6% tariff on all aluminum imports from certain countries, while other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the U.S.3 3. A quota on all aluminum imports from other countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the U.S. In a memo issued last week, the U.S. Department of Defense expressed its support for the targeted tariffs (option 2 above), as well as a recommendation to postpone action on the aluminum sector. President Trump has until April 19 to make a decision on the aluminum recommendations. While he may not stick to the exact details outlined in the three options, our Geopolitical Strategists expect him to go through with implementing protectionist measures to limit aluminum imports. U.S. production of primary aluminum is at its lowest level since 1951 (Chart 8). To reach the 80% target of smelter capacity utilization envisioned by Commerce, the U.S. will have to add ~ 0.67 mm MT of supply. This represents just ~ 1.16% of world supply in 2016. Imports currently make up 90% of U.S. primary aluminum consumption. Chart 8U.S. Producers Took A Big Hit U.S. Producers Took A Big Hit U.S. Producers Took A Big Hit In fact, even if this amount of aluminum was supplied domestically in the U.S. last year, the world aluminum market would have remained in deficit. Furthermore, this additional supply would pale in comparison to the cuts China has already implemented in its aluminum sector last year. China's primary production in the August to December period last year came in 1.15 mm MT below the same period in 2016. Annual smelter capacity in the U.S. is estimated to be a combined 1.82 mm MT. Of this capacity, Alcoa has 0.34 mm MT of idle capacity, Century Aluminum has 0.27 mm MT, while ARG International's Missouri plant has 0.27 mm MT of idle capacity. U.S. producers have started communicating plans to restart idled capacity. According to Century Aluminum's CEO, the company's eastern Kansas operation, which shuttered more than half of its production, could ramp output at one of its smelters to full capacity of up to 0.27 mm MT by early next year. Similarly, Alcoa has committed to partially restarting production at its Warwick, Indiana, facility, which would bring 0.16 mm MT of capacity online by the second quarter of this year. However, imports are not the sole reason output in the U.S. aluminum sector is falling. High power costs also have contributed, but this is not addressed in the Department of Commerce's report. In any case, we would not be surprised to witness an increase in aluminum imports by U.S. consumers before a final decision is made. If import controls do in fact fall into place, prices in the U.S. - as reflected by the U.S. Midwest transaction premium - will likely increase. Bottom Line: Supply- and demand-side developments, mostly in China, which accounts for more than half of global production and consumption, will combine to ease a global supply deficit this year. Expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will take some pressure off prices, but, we do not expect levels to move significantly lower. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "China Hongqiao says to cut 2 mln T/year of outdated aluminum capacity," published on August 2, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "Aluminum Under Pressure After China Smog Cutbacks Fall Short," published on December 20, 2017, available at reuters.com. 3 The countries noted are China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease

Highlights This past week, oil ministers from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - OPEC 2.0's putative leaders - separately indicated increased comfort with higher prices over the next year or so.1 This suggests they are converging on a common production-management strategy, which accommodates KSA's need for higher prices over the short term to support the IPO of Saudi Aramco, and Russia's longer term desire to avoid reaching price levels where U.S. shale-oil production is massively incentivized to expand. We believe OPEC 2.0's production cuts will be extended to year-end, given signaling by Khalid Al-Falih, KSA's energy minister. As a result, we expect Brent and WTI crude oil prices to average $74 and $70/bbl this year, respectively (Chart Of The Week). These expectations are up from our previous estimates of $67 and $63/bbl, which were premised on curtailed production slowly being returned to market beginning in July. For next year, the extended cuts could lift Brent and WTI to $67 and $64/bbl, up from our previous expectations of $55 and $53/bbl, respectively. Extending OPEC 2.0's production cuts will accelerate OECD inventory draws, which have been faster than expected. Higher prices caused by maintaining the cuts will lift U.S. shale production more than our earlier estimates. Backwardations in both Brent and WTI forward curves will remain steep in this regime, muting the impact of Fed policy on oil prices. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/18 $70/bbl calls on the back of our updated price forecast. We also are taking profits on our long 4Q19 $55/bbl Brent puts vs. short 4Q19 $50/bbl Brent puts, which were up 27.4% as of Tuesday's close. Base Metals: Neutral. The U.S. Commerce Department proposed "Section 232" tariffs and quotas on U.S. aluminum and steel imports, following national security reviews. President Trump has until mid-April to respond, and we expect him to go through with one of the three proposed options. Precious Metals: Gold remains range-bound around $1,350/oz, as markets wrestle with the likely evolution of the Fed's rate-hiking regimen. Ags/Softs: Underweight. USDA economists project grain and soybean prices to slowly rise over the next 10 years, according to agriculture.com. Feature Chart Of The WeekBCA Lifts Oil Price Forecasts BCA Lifts Oil Price Forecasts BCA Lifts Oil Price Forecasts Over the past week, comments from Saudi and Russian oil ministers indicate they are more comfortable with maintaining OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018, which, along with strong global demand growth, raises the odds Brent crude oil prices will exceed $70/bbl this year, and possibly next. Whether this is the result of the Saudi's need for higher prices to support the Aramco IPO, or it reflects an assessment by OPEC 2.0's leaders that the world economy can absorb higher prices without damaging demand over the short term is not clear. Markets have yet to receive what we could consider definitive forward guidance from OPEC 2.0 leadership, indicating that recent signaling could be foreshadowing the coalition's new policy. We are raising the odds that it is, and are moving our Brent and WTI forecasts higher for this year and next. Lifting 2018 Brent, WTI Forecasts To $74 And $70/bbl Maintaining OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018 will lift average Brent and WTI crude oil prices to $74 and $70/bbl, respectively, this year, based on our updated supply-demand balances modeling (Chart Of The Week). This is not definitive OPEC 2.0 policy guidance: KSA's and Russia's oil ministers indicated they expect such an outcome in separate statements, and not, as has been the case with previous announcements, at a joint press conference.2 We are assuming the odds strongly favor such an outcome, and give an 80% weight to it. The remaining 20% reflects our previous expectation that OPEC 2.0's production cuts would cease at end-June, and curtailed volumes would slowly be restored over 2H18. Resolving this in favor of the former expectation would lift our price expectations to $76 and $73/bbl for Brent and WTI this year, and $70 and $68/bbl next year. These expectations are up from our previous estimates of $67 and $63/bbl for Brent and WTI prices this year, which were premised on curtailed OPEC 2.0 production slowly returning to market beginning in July, and a subsequent OECD inventory rebuilding. By maintaining production cuts to year-end, supply-demand balances remain tighter, which keeps inventories drawing for a longer period of time (Chart 2). Higher inventories would have increased the sensitivity of oil prices to the USD, which we showed in research on February 8th 2018. With OPEC 2.0's production cuts maintained throughout the year, OECD inventories will be more depleted by year-end (Chart 3). Extending OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018 would result in an additional 130mm bbls reduction to OECD inventories versus our prior modeling. This means Brent and WTI forward curves will be more backwardated than they would have been had the barrels taken off the market at the beginning of 2017 been slowly restored starting in July of this year, as we earlier expected. Chart 2Fundamental Balances Remain In Deficit Longer Fundamental Balances Remain In Deficit Longer Fundamental Balances Remain In Deficit Longer Chart 3Maintaining Production Cuts Depletes Inventories Even More Maintaining Production Cuts Depletes Inventories Even More Maintaining Production Cuts Depletes Inventories Even More A steeper backwardation in oil forward curves - i.e., the front of the curve trades premium to the deferred contracts - reduces the USD effects on oil, all else equal. In other words, supply-demand fundamentals dominate the evolution of oil prices when forward curves are more backwardated, and the influence of financial variables -the USD in particular - is muted.3 For next year, we assume the volumes cut by OPEC 2.0 are slowly restored to the market over 1H19, lifting Brent and WTI to $67 and $64/bbl on average, up from our previous expectations of $55 and $53/bbl, respectively.4 Higher Shale Output, Strong Global Demand We expect U.S. shale production increases by 1.15mm b/d from December 2017 to December 2018, and another 1.3-1.4mm b/d during calendar 2019. This dominates non-OPEC production growth this year and next (Chart 4, top panel). Due to the supply response of the shales to higher prices in 2018, global production levels would see a net increase from March 2019 and beyond. Our assumption OPEC 2.0 production cuts will be maintained through 2018 puts our OPEC production assessment 0.14mm b/d below U.S. EIA's estimates (Chart 4, bottom panel). On the demand side, we continue to expect non-OECD (EM) growth to push global oil consumption up by 1.7mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, respectively (Chart 5). Non-OECD demand is expected to account for 1.24mm b/d and 1.21mm b/d of this growth in 2018 and 2019, respectively (Table 1). Chart 4U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Supply Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Supply Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Supply Growth Chart 5Non-OECD Demand Growth Continues Non-OECD Demand Growth Continues Non-OECD Demand Growth Continues Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices Aramco IPO Driving OPEC 2.0's Short-Term Agenda In previous research, we noted what appeared to be a relatively minor divergence between the goals of KSA and Russia when it comes to the level prices each would prefer over the short term. Recent press reports - unattributed, of course - suggest Saudi Aramco officials prefer a Brent price closer to $70/bbl further along the forward curve (two years out) to support their upcoming IPO.5 This obviously would bolster Aramco's oil-export revenues - some 7mm b/d of its 10mm b/d of production are exported - and income, which shareholders would welcome. However, until this past week, Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, was signaling a range of $50 to $60/bbl works better for his constituents, i.e., shareholder-owned Russian oil companies. Novak recently amended his range to $50 to $70/bbl for Brent.6 These positions are not irreconcilable. One is shorter term (2 years forward) and the other is longer term, attempting to balance competitive threats over a longer horizon - e.g., from U.S. shale-oil producers, electric vehicles, etc. This most recent indication the leadership of OPEC 2.0 is comfortable with higher prices over the short term is an indication - at least to us - that these issues are being dealt with in a way that allows markets to incorporate forward guidance into pricing of crude oil over the next two years. Beyond that, however, markets will need to hear an articulated strategy containing a post-Aramco IPO view of the world, so that capital can be efficiently allocated. KSA and Russia are in a global competition for foreign direct investment (FDI), and having a fully articulated strategy re how they will manage their production in fast-changing markets - where, for example, shale-oil approaches becoming a "just-in-time" supply option - will be critical. Signing a formal alliance by year-end would support this, but that, too, will require a level of cooperation that runs deeper than what OPEC 2.0 has so far demonstrated, impressive though it may be. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 leadership is signalling production cuts will be maintained for the entire year, not, as we expected, left to expire at end-June with curtailed barrels slowly returned to the market over 2H18. While this does not appear to be official policy of the producer coalition yet, we are revising our price expectations in line with tighter markets this year, lower OECD inventories and continued backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves. OPEC 2.0's shorter-term agenda, driven by KSA's IPO of Saudi Aramco, and its longer-term agenda - maintaining oil's competitive edge and accommodating U.S. shale-oil production (but not too much) - appear to be getting reconciled. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com  1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by KSA and Russia, has removed some 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d of oil production from the market beginning in 2017. 2 Please see, "Brent crude settles flat, U.S. oil up on short covering," published by reuters.com on February 15th 2018, in which KSA's oil minister Khalid Al-Falih indicated OPEC would maintain production cuts throughout 2018. See also, "On the air of the TV channel 'Russia 24' Alexander Novak summed up the participation in the work of the Russian investment forum 'Sochi-2018,'" published by Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation on February 15th 2018. Lastly, please see "Saudi Arabia Is Taking a Harder Line on Oil Prices," published by bloomberg.com on February 19th 2018. 3 We discuss this in "OPEC 2.0 vs. The Fed," which was published on February 8th 2018 by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 These expectations are highly conditional. Toward the end of this year, KSA and Russia are indicating the OPEC 2.0 coalition will become a more formal organization, with members signing a long-term alliance. Among other things, OPEC 2.0 members would be expected to build buffer stocks to address any sudden supply outages, in order to maintain orderly markets. Please see "Oil producers to draft long-term alliance deal by end-2018: UAE minister," published by reuters.com on February 15th 2018. 5 Please see "For timing of Aramco IPO, watch forward oil price curve," published by reuters.com on February 19th 2018. 6 Please see reference in footnote 3 and "Russia's Novak says current oil price is acceptable," published by reuters.com on February 15th 2018. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices Trades Closed In 2018 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2017 OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices

Highlights The financial landscape has shifted over the past month with the arrival of some inflation 'green shoots' and a major shift in U.S. fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is shaping up to be a major source of demand and a possible headache for the FOMC. Tax cuts and the spending deal will result in fiscal stimulus of about 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. The latest U.S. CPI and average hourly earnings reports caught investors' attention. However, most other wage measures are consistent with our base-case view that inflation will trend higher in an orderly fashion. If correct, this will allow the FOMC to avoid leaning heavily against the fiscal stimulus. Stronger nominal growth and a patient Fed are a positive combination for risk assets such as corporate bonds and equities. The projected peak in S&P profit growth now occurs later in the year and at a higher level compared with our previous forecast. The bad news is that the fiscal stimulus and budding inflation signs imply that investors cannot count as much on the "Fed Put" to offset negative shocks. Our fixed income strategists have raised their year-end target for the 10-year Treasury yield from around 3% to the 3.3-3.5% range, partly reflecting the U.S. fiscal shock. That said, extreme short positioning and oversold conditions suggest that a consolidation phase is likely in the near term. Loose fiscal and tight money should be bullish for the currency. However, angst regarding the U.S. "twin deficits" problem appears to be weighing on the dollar. We do not believe that fiscal largesse will cause the current account deficit to blow out by enough to seriously undermine the dollar. We still expect a bounce in the dollar, but we cannot rule out further weakness in the near term. Fiscal stimulus could extend the expansion, but the more important point is that faster growth in the coming quarters will deepen the next recession. For now, stay overweight risk assets (equities and corporate bonds), and below benchmark in duration. Feature The financial landscape has shifted over the past month with the arrival of some inflation 'green shoots' and a major shift in U.S. fiscal policy. This has not come as a surprise to BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, which has been flagging the shift away from fiscal conservatism and towards populism for some time, particularly in the U.S. context.1 The move is wider than just in the U.S. In Germany, the Grand Coalition deal was only concluded after Chancellor Merkel conceded to demands for more spending on everything from education to public investment in technology and defense. The German fiscal surplus will likely be fully spent. There is no fiscal room outside of Germany, but the austerity era is over. Japan is also on track to ease fiscal policy this year. The big news, however, is in the U.S. President Trump is moving to the middle ground in order to avoid losing the House in this year's midterm elections. Deficit hawks have mutated into doves with the passage of profligate tax cuts, and Congress is now on the brink of a monumental two-year appropriations bill that will add significantly to the Federal budget deficit (Chart I-1). The deficit will likely rise to about 5½% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast for that year. This includes the impact of the tax cuts, as well as outlays for disaster relief ($45 billion), the military ($165 billion) and non-defense discretionary items ($131 billion), spread over the next two years. A deal on infrastructure spending would add to this already-lofty total. Chart I-1U.S. Budget Deficit To Reach 5 1/2 % In 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 There is also talk in Congress of re-authorizing "earmarks" - legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks could add another $50 billion in spending over 2018 and 2019. While not a major stimulative measure, earmarks could further reduce Congressional gridlock and underscore that all pretense of fiscal restraint is gone. Chart I-2Substantial Stimulus In The Pipeline March 2018 March 2018 Chart I-2 presents an estimate of U.S. fiscal thrust, which is a measure of the initial economic impulse of changes in government tax and spending policies.2 The IMF's baseline, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that policy would be contractionary this year (about ½% of GDP), and slightly expansionary in 2019. Incorporating the impact of the tax cuts and the Senate deal on spending, the fiscal impulse will now be positive in 2018, to the tune of 0.8% of GDP. Next year's impulse will be even larger, at 1.3%. These figures are tentative, because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. A lot can change in the coming months as Congress hammers out the final deal. Moreover, the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest, because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending. Nonetheless, the key point is that fiscal policy is shaping up to be a major source of demand and a possible headache for the FOMC. The Fed's Dilemma Chart I-3U.S. Inflation Green Shoots U.S. Inflation Green Shoots U.S. Inflation Green Shoots Textbook economic models tell us that the combination of expansionary fiscal policy and tightening monetary policy is a recipe for rising interest rates and a stronger currency. However, it is not clear how much of the coming pickup in nominal GDP growth will be due to inflation versus real growth, given that the U.S. already appears to be near full employment. How will the Fed respond to the new fiscal outlook? We do not believe policymakers will respond aggressively, but much depends on the evolution of inflation. January's 0.3% rise in the core CPI index grabbed investors' attention, coming on the heels of a surprisingly strong average hourly earnings report (AHE). The 3-month annualized core inflation rate surged to 2.9% (Chart I-3). Among the components, the large rent and owners' equivalent rent indexes each rose 0.3% in the month, while medical care services jumped by 0.6%. Also notable was the 1.7% surge in apparel prices, which may reflect 'catch up' with the perky PPI apparel index. More generally, it appears that the upward trend in import price inflation is finally leaking into consumer prices. That said, investors should not get carried away. Most other wage measures, such as unit labor costs, are not flashing red. This is consistent with our base-case view that inflation will trend higher in an orderly fashion over the coming months. Moreover, the Fed's preferred measure, core PCE inflation, is still well below 2%. If our 'gradual rise' inflation view proves correct, it will allow the FOMC to avoid leaning heavily against the fiscal stimulus. We argued in last month's Overview that the new FOMC will strive to avoid major shifts in policy, and that Chair Powell has shown during his time on the FOMC that he is not one to rock the boat. It is doubtful that the FOMC will try to head off the impact of the fiscal stimulus on growth via sharply higher rates, opting instead to maintain the current 'dot plot' for now and wait to see how the stimulus translates into growth versus inflation. Stronger nominal growth and a patient Fed is a positive combination for risk assets such as corporate bonds and equities. Chart I-4 provides an update of our top-down S&P operating profit forecast, incorporating the economic impact of the new fiscal stimulus. We still expect profit growth to peak this year as industrial production tops out and margins begin to moderate on the back of rising wages. However, the projected peak now occurs later in the year and at a higher level compared with our previous forecast, and the whole profile is shifted up. Most of this improvement in the profit outlook is already discounted in prices, but the key point is that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for stocks at least into early 2019. Chart I-4The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The End Of The Low-Vol Period That said, the U.S. is in the late innings of the expansion and risk assets have entered a new, more volatile phase. We have been warning of upheaval when investor complacency regarding inflation is challenged, because the rally in risk assets has been balanced precariously on a three-legged stool of low inflation, depressed interest rates and modest economic volatility. All it took was a couple of small positive inflation surprises to spark a reset in the market for volatility. The key question is whether February's turmoil represented a healthy market correction or a signal that a bear market is approaching. The good news is that the widening in high-yield corporate bond spreads was muted (Chart I-5). This market has often provided an early warning sign of an approaching major top in the stock market. The adjustment in other risk gauges, such as EM stocks and gold, was also fairly modest. This suggests that equity and volatility market action was largely technical in nature, in the context of extended investor positioning, crowded trades and elevated valuations. There has been no change in the items on our checklist for trimming equity exposure. We presented the checklist in last month's Overview. Our short-term economic growth models for the major countries remain upbeat and our global capital spending indicators are also bullish (Chart I-6). Industrial production in the advanced economies is in hyper-drive as global capital spending growth accelerates (Chart I-7). Chart I-5February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset Chart I-6Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Chart I-7... Partly Due To Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration Nonetheless, it will be difficult to put the 'vol genie' back into the bottle. The surge in bond yields has focused market attention on the leverage pressure points in the system. One potential source of volatility is the corporate bond space. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 17, analyses the vulnerability of the U.S. corporate sector to rising interest rates. We conclude that higher rates on their own won't cause significant pain, but the combination of higher rates and a downturn in earnings would lead to a major deterioration in credit quality. Moreover, expansionary fiscal policy and recent inflation surprises have limited the Fed's room to maneuver. Under Fed Chairs Bernanke and Yellen, markets relied on a so-called "Fed Put". When inflation was low and stable, economic slack was abundant and long-term inflation expectations were depressed then disappointing economic data or equity market setbacks were followed by an easing in the expectations for Fed rate hikes. This helped to calm investors' nerves. We do not think that the Powell FOMC represents a regime shift in terms of the Fed's reaction function, but the rise in long-term inflation expectations and the January inflation report have altered the Fed's calculus. The new Committee will be more tolerant of equity corrections and tighter financial conditions than in the past. Indeed, some FOMC members would welcome reduced frothiness in financial markets, as long as the correction is not large enough to undermine the economy (i.e. a 20% or greater equity market decline). The implication is that we are unlikely to see a return of market volatility to the lows observed early this year. Bonds: Due For Consolidation Chart I-8Market Is Converging With Fed 'Dots' Market is Converging With Fed 'Dots' Market is Converging With Fed 'Dots' A lot of adjustment has already taken place in the bond market. Market expectations for the Fed funds rate have moved up sharply since last month (Chart I-8). The market now discounts three rate hikes in 2018, in line with the Fed 'dot plot'. Expectations still fall short of the Fed's plan in 2019, but the market's estimate of the terminal fed funds rate has largely converged with the Fed's dots. Meanwhile, the latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that investors cut bond allocations to the lowest level in the 20-year history of the report. All of this raises the odds that the rise in U.S. and global bond yields will correct before the bear phase resumes. Our fixed income strategists have raised their year-end target for the 10-year Treasury yield from around 3% to the 3.3-3.5% range. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has jumped to 2.1% even as oil prices have softened, signaling that the market is seeing more evidence of underlying inflationary pressure. This breakeven rate will likely rise by another 30 basis points and settle back into its pre-Lehman trading range of 2.3-2.5%. Importantly, the latter range was consistent with stable inflation expectations in the pre-Lehman years. The upward revision to our 10-year nominal yield target is due to a higher real rate assumption. In part, this reflects the fact that we have been impressed by last year's productivity performance. We are not expecting a major structural upshift in underlying productivity growth, for reasons cited by our colleague Peter Berezin in a recent report.3 Nonetheless, capital spending has picked up and Chart I-9 suggests that productivity growth should move a little higher in the coming years based on the acceleration in growth of the capital stock. Equilibrium interest rates should rise in line with slightly faster potential economic growth. Should we worry about a higher fiscal risk premium in bond yields? In the pre-Lehman era, academic studies suggested that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio added three basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. We shouldn't think of this as a 'default risk premium', because there is little default risk for a country that can print its own currency. Rather, higher yields reflect a crowding-out effect; since growth is limited in the long run by the supply side of the economy, a larger government sector means that some private sector demand needs to be crowded out via higher real interest rates. Plentiful economic slack negated the need for any crowding out as government debt exploded in aftermath of the Great Recession. Moreover, quantitative easing programs soaked up more than all of net government issuance for the major economies. Chart I-10 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017. The flow will swing to a positive figure of US$957 billion this year and US$1,127 billion in 2019. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private sector issuance for available savings. Chart I-9U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly Chart I-10Government Bond Supply Is Accelerating Government Bond Supply is Accelerating Government Bond Supply is Accelerating The bottom line is that duration should be kept short of benchmarks within fixed-income portfolios, although we would not be surprised to see a consolidation phase or even a counter-trend rally in the near term. Dollar Cross Currents As mentioned earlier, standard theory suggests that loose fiscal policy and tight money should be bullish for the currency. However, the U.S. situation is complicated by the fact that fiscal stimulus will likely worsen the "twin deficits" problem. The current account deficit widened last year to 2.6% of GDP (Chart I-11). The fiscal measures will result in a jump in the Federal budget deficit to roughly 5½% in 2019, up from 3½% in last summer's CBO baseline projection. As a ballpark estimate, the two percentage point increase will cause the current account deficit to widen by only 0.3 percentage points. Of course, this will be partly offset by the continued improvement in the energy balance due to surging shale oil production. The poor international investment position is another potential negative for the greenback. Persistent U.S. current account deficits have resulted in a huge shortfall in the country's international investment account, which has reached 40% of GDP (Chart I-12). This means that foreign investors own a larger stock of U.S. financial assets than U.S. investors own abroad. Nonetheless, what matters for the dollar are the returns that flow from these assets. U.S. investors have always earned more on their overseas investments than foreigners make on their U.S. assets (which are dominated by low-yielding fixed-income securities). Thus, the U.S. still enjoys a 0.5% of GDP net positive inflow of international income (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? Chart I-12U.S. Net International Investment U.S. Net International Investment U.S. Net International Investment Interest income flowing abroad will rise along with U.S. bond yields. This will undermine the U.S. surplus on international income to the extent that it is not offset by rising returns on U.S. investments held abroad. We estimate that a further 60 basis point rise in the U.S. Treasury curve (taking the 10-year yield from 2.9% to our target of 3½%) would cause the primary income surplus to fall by about 0.7 percentage points (Chart I-13). Adding this to the 0.3 percentage points from the direct effect of the increased fiscal deficit, the current account shortfall would deteriorate to roughly 3½% of GDP. While the deterioration is significant, the external deficit would simply return to 2009 levels. We doubt this would justify an ongoing dollar bear market on its own. Historically, a widening current account deficit has not always been the dominant driver of dollar trends. What should matter more is the Fed's response to the fiscal stimulus. If the FOMC does not immediately respond to head off the growth impulse, then rising inflation expectations could depress real rates at the short-end of the curve and undermine the dollar temporarily, especially in the context of a deteriorating external balance. The dollar would likely receive a bid later, when inflation clearly shifts higher and long-term inflation expectations move into the target zone discussed above. At that point, policymakers will step up the pace of rate hikes in order to get ahead of the inflation curve. The bottom line is that we still believe that the dollar will move somewhat higher on a 12-month horizon, but we can't rule out a continued downtrend in the near term until inflation clearly bottoms. It will also be difficult for the dollar to rally in the near term in trade-weighted terms if our currency strategists are correct on the yen outlook. The Japanese labor market is extremely tight, industrial production is growing at an impressive 4.4% pace, and the OECD estimates that output is now more than one percentage point above its non-inflationary level (Chart I-14). Investors are betting that a booming economy will give the monetary authorities the chance to move away from extraordinarily accommodative conditions. Investors are thus lifting their estimates of where Japanese policy will stand in three or five years. Chart I-13U.S. Fiscal Stimulus ##br##Impact On External Deficit U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Impact On External Deficit U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Impact On External Deficit Chart I-14Yen Benefitting From ##br##Domestic And Foreign Growth Yen Benefitting From Domestic And Foreign Growth Yen Benefitting From Domestic And Foreign Growth Increased volatility in global markets is also yen-bullish, especially since speculative shorts in the yen had reached near record levels. The pullback in global risk assets triggered some short-covering in yen-funded carry trades. Finally, the yen trades at a large discount to purchasing power parity. A strong Yen could prevent dollar rally in trade-weighted terms in the near term. Finally, A Word On Oil Oil prices corrected along with the broader pullback in risk assets in February. Nonetheless, the fundamentals point to a continued tightening in crude oil markets in the first half of 2018 (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Oil Inventory Correction Continuing Oil Inventory Correction Continuing Oil Inventory Correction Continuing OPEC's goal of reducing OECD inventories to five-year average levels will likely be met late this year. OPEC and Russia's production cuts are pretty much locked in to the end of June, when the producer coalition will next meet. Even with U.S. shale-oil output increasing, solid global demand will ensure that OECD inventories will continue to draw through the spring period. Over the past week, comments from Saudi and Russian oil ministers indicate they are more comfortable with extending OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018, which, along with strong global demand growth, raises the odds Brent crude oil prices will exceed $70/bbl this year and possibly next year. Whether this is the result of the Saudi's need for higher prices to support the Aramco IPO, or it reflects an assessment by OPEC 2.0 that the world economy can absorb such prices without damaging demand too much, is not clear. Markets have yet to receive forward guidance from OPEC 2.0 leadership indicating this is the coalition's new policy, but our oil analysts are raising the odds that it is, and will be adjusting their forecast accordingly this week. Investment Conclusions The combination of an initially plodding Fed and faster earnings growth this year provides a bullish backdrop for the equity market. Treasury yields will continue to trend higher but, as long as the Fed sticks with the current 'dot plot', the pain in the fixed-income pits will not prevent the equity bull phase to continue for a while longer. Nonetheless, the fiscal stimulus is arriving very late in the U.S. economic cycle. The fact that there is little economic slack means that, rather than extending the expansion and the runway for earnings, stimulus might simply generate a more exaggerated boom/bust scenario; the FOMC sticks with the current game plan in the near term, but ends up falling behind the inflation curve and then is forced to catch up. The implication is 'faster growth now, deeper recession later'. Timing the end of the business cycle keeps coming back to the inflation outlook. If the result of the fiscal stimulus is more inflation but not much more growth, then the Fed will be forced to step harder and earlier on the brakes. Our base case is that inflation rises in a gradual way, but it has been very difficult to forecast inflation in this cycle. The bottom line is that our recommended asset allocation is unchanged for now. We are overweight risk assets (equities and corporate bonds), and below benchmark on duration. We will continue to watch the items in our Exit Checklist for warning signs (see last month's Overview). We are likely to trim corporate bond exposure within fixed-income portfolios to neutral or underweight in advance of taking profits on equities. The dollar should head up at some point, although not in the near term. The yen should be the strongest currency of the majors in the next 3-6 months. In currency-hedged terms, our fixed-income team still believes that JGBs are the best place to hide from the bond bear market. Gilts and Aussie governments also provide some protection. The worst performers will likely be government bonds in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst February 22, 2018 Next Report: March 29, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, expressed as a percent of GDP. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector We estimate the corporate sector's vulnerability to rising interest rates and a weaker economic environment, highlighting the industries that will be hit the hardest. Both our top-down and bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors show that overall corporate finances improved last year on the back of a mini profit boom. Nonetheless, leverage remained on the up-escalator. The re-leveraging of the corporate sector has been widespread across industries and ratings. The credit cycle has entered a late stage and we are biased to take profits early on our overweight corporate bond positioning. Rising interest rates will not, on their own, trigger a downgrade and default wave in the next few years. Nonetheless, the starting point for interest coverage ratios is low. The interest coverage ratio for the U.S. non-financial corporate sector will likely drop to all-time lows even in a mild recession. Downgrades will proliferate when the rating agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Our profit indicators are more likely to give an early warning sign than the economic data. We remain overweight corporates within fixed income portfolios for now, but a downgrade would be warranted given some combination of rising core consumer price inflation, a further increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 2.3%, and/or a deterioration in our margin proxy. February's "volatility" tremors focused investor attention on leveraged pressure points in the financial system, at a time when valuation is stretched and central banks are turning down the monetary thermostat. The market swoon may have simply reflected the unwinding of crowded volatility-related trades, but the risk is that there are other landmines lurking just ahead. The corporate sector is one candidate. Equity buybacks have not been especially large compared to previous cycles after adjusting for the length of the expansion (i.e. adjusting for cumulative GDP over the period, Chart II-1).1 But the expansion has gone on for so long that cumulative buybacks exceed the previous three expansions in absolute terms (Chart II-1, bottom panel). One would expect a lot of financial engineering to take place in an environment where borrowing costs are held at very low levels for an extended period. But, of course, one should also expect there to be consequences. Chart II-1Cycle Comparison: Corporate Finance Trends March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-2Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage As Chart II-2 shows, corporate spreads tend to follow the broad trends in leverage, albeit with lengthy periods of divergence. The chart suggests that current spreads are far too narrow given the level of corporate leverage. Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, this will change as interest rates rise and investors begin to worry about the growth outlook rather than squeezing the last drop of yield out of spread product. In this Special Report, we estimate the corporate sector's vulnerability to rising interest rates and a weaker economic environment, highlighting the industries that will be hit the hardest. But first, we review recent trends in leverage and overall balance sheet health. BCA's Corporate Health Monitors BCA's top-down Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has been a workhorse for our corporate bond strategy for almost 20 years (Chart II-3). It is based on six financial ratios constructed from the U.S. Flow of Funds data for the entire non-financial corporate sector (Table II-1). The top-down CHM shifted into "deteriorating health" territory in 2014 on the back of rising leverage and an eroding return on capital.2 Chart II-3Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs March 2018 March 2018 The downward trend in the return on capital since 2007 is disturbing, as it suggests that there is a surplus of capital on U.S. balance sheets that is largely unproductive and not lifting profits. This can also be seen in the run-up in corporate borrowing in recent years that has been used to undertake share buybacks. If a company's best investment idea is to take on debt to repurchase its own stock, rather than borrow to invest in its own business, then the expected internal rate of return on investment must be quite low. This is a longer-term problem for corporate health. Alternatively, financial engineering may reflect misaligned incentives, such as stock options, rather than poor investment opportunities. The good news is that profit margins bounced back in 2017, which was reflected in a small decline in our top-down CHM toward the zero line over the past year (although it remained in 'deteriorating' territory). While the top-down CHM has been a useful indicator to time bear markets in corporate bond relative performance, it tells us nothing about the distribution of credit quality. In 2016 we looked at the financials of 1,600 U.S. companies to obtain a more detailed picture of corporate health. After removing ones with limited history or missing data, our sample shrank to a still-respectable 770 companies from across the industrial and quality spectrum. We then constructed an overall Corporate Health Monitor for all companies in the sample, as well as for the nine non-financial industries. We refer to these indicators as bottom-up CHMs, which we regard as complements to our top-down Health Monitor. The companies selected for our universe provided a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matched the Barclays corporate bond indexes. In our first report, published in the February 2016 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, we highlighted that the financial ratios and overall corporate health looked only a little better excluding the troubled energy and materials sectors. The level of debt/equity was even a bit higher outside of the commodity industries. The implication was that, at the time, corporate credit quality had deteriorated across industrial sectors and levels of credit quality. Profitability Drove Improving Health In 2017... An update of the bottom-up CHMs shows that corporate financial health improved in 2017 for both the investment-grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) sectors (Chart II-4 and Chart II-5). The IG bottom-up Monitor remains in "deteriorating health" territory, but HY Monitor moved almost all the way back to the neutral line by year end. Leverage continued to trend higher last year for both IG and HY, but this was more than offset by a strong earnings performance that was reflected in rising operating margins, interest coverage and debt coverage. Chart II-4Bottom-Up IG CHM BOTTOM-UP IG CHM BOTTOM-UP IG CHM Chart II-5Bottom-Up HY CHM BOTTOM-UP HY CHM BOTTOM-UP HY CHM These improvements were particularly evident in the sub-investment grade universe. Our industry high-yield CHMs fell significantly in 2017 from elevated (i.e. poor) levels all the way back to the neutral line for Consumer Discretionary, Energy, Industrials, Materials and Utilities (not shown). The high-yield Technology and Health Care sector CHMs are also close to neutral. ...But The Earnings Runway Is Limited Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. While interest coverage (EBIT divided by interest payments) improved last year for most industries, it remains depressed by historical standards. This is despite ultra-low borrowing rates and a robust earnings backdrop. U.S. companies are not facing an imminent cash crunch that would raise downgrade/default risk, but depressed interest coverage suggests that there is less room for error than in previous years. Table II-2Widespread Re-Leveraging March 2018 March 2018 Now that government bond yields have bottomed for the cycle and the "green shoots" of inflation are beginning to emerge, it begs the question of corporate sector exposure to rising interest costs. The sensitivity is important because Moody's assigns a weight of between 20% and 40% for the leverage and coverage ratios when rating a company, depending on the industry. Downgrade risk will escalate if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the U.S. economy enters a downturn. Comparing the level of debt or leverage across industries is complicated by the fact that some industries perpetually carry more debt than others due to the nature of the business. Moody's uses different thresholds for leverage when rating companies, depending on the industry. Thus, the change in the leverage ratio is perhaps more important than its level when comparing industries. Table II-2 shows the change in the ratio of debt to the book value of equity from our bottom-up universe of companies from 2010 to 2017. Leverage rose sharply in all sectors except Utilities. The worse two sectors were Communications and Consumer Discretionary, where leverage rose by 81 and 104 percentage points, respectively. Highest Risk Sectors We expect a traditional end to the business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into recession. The industrial sectors with the poorest financial health and the greatest earnings "beta" to the overall market are most at risk in this macro scenario. We first estimate earnings betas by comparing the peak-to-trough decline in EPS for each sector to the overall decline in the non-financial S&P 500 EPS, taking an average of the last two recessions (we could not include the early 1990s recession due to data limitations). Not surprisingly, Materials, Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy sport the highest earnings beta based on this methodology (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-7 presents a scatter plot of 2017 leverage versus the industry's earnings beta. Consumer Discretionary stands out on the high side on both counts. Materials and Energy are also high-beta industries, but have lower leverage. Communications is a high-debt industry with a medium earnings beta. These same industries stand out when comparing the earnings beta to the interest coverage ratio (the lower the interest coverage ratio the more risky in Chart II-8). Chart II-7Leverage Vs. Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-8Interest Coverage Ratio Vs. Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Of course, a sector's sensitivity to rising interest rates will depend on both the level of debt and its maturity distribution. Higher rates will not have much impact in the near term for firms that have little debt to roll over in the next couple of years. Chart II-9 presents the percentage of total debt that will come due over the next three years by industry. Consumer Discretionary, Tech, Staples and Industrials are the most exposed to debt rollover. To further refine the analysis, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt. We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. For the universe of our companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from about 4 to 2½, well below the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-10). The Consumer Staples, Tech and Health Care are affected most deeply (Chart II-11 and Chart II-12). Chart II-9Debt Maturing In Next ##br##Three Years (% Of Total) March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-10Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Headed To New Lows Interest Coverage Ratio Headed To New Lows Interest Coverage Ratio Headed To New Lows Chart II-11Interest Coverage By ##br##Sector (IG Plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Chart II-12Interest Coverage By ##br##Sector (IG Plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Recession Shock Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. Looking again at Charts II-10 to II-12, "o" denotes the combination of a 100 basis point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. We estimate the decline in EPS based on the industry's earnings beta to the overall market. The overall interest coverage ratio falls even further into uncharted territory below two. The additional shock of the earnings recession makes little difference to earnings coverage for the low beta sectors such as Consumer Staples and Health Care. The coverage ratio falls sharply for the Communications and Industries, although not to new lows. It is a different story for Consumer Discretionary and Materials. The combination of elevated debt and a high earnings beta means that the interest coverage ratio would likely plunge to levels well below previous lows for these two industries. Corporate bond investors and rating agencies will certainly notice. Signposts Our top-down Corporate Health Monitor is one of the key indicators we use to identify cyclical bear phases for corporate bond excess returns. A shift from "improving" to "deteriorating" health has been a reliable confirming indicator for periods of sustained spread widening. The other two key indicators are (Chart II-13): Chart II-13Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Bank lending standards for Commercial & Industrial loans: Banks begin to tighten up on lending standards when they realize that the economy is slowing and credit quality is deteriorating as a result. By making it more difficult for firms to roll over bank loans or replace bond financing, more restrictive standards reinforce the negative trend in corporate credit quality. We traditionally view lending standards as a confirming indicator for a turn in the credit cycle, since tightening standards are typically preceded by deteriorating corporate health and restrictive monetary policy. Restrictive monetary policy: This is the most difficult of the three indicators for which to determine critical values. We had a good idea of the level of the neutral real fed funds rate prior to 2007. Since then, our monetary compass is far less certain because the neutral rate has likely declined for cyclical and structural reasons. The real fed funds rate has moved just slightly into restrictive territory if we take the Laubach-Williams estimate at face value (Chart II-13, third panel). That said, we would expect the 2/10 Treasury yield curve to be closer to inverting if real short-term interest rates are indeed in restrictive territory. Taking the two indicators together, we conclude that monetary policy is not yet outright restrictive. Historically, all three indicators had to be flashing red in order to justify a shift to below-benchmark on corporate bonds within fixed-income portfolios. Only the CHM is negative at the moment, but this time we are unlikely to wait for all three signals to take profits. Poor valuation, lopsided positioning, financial engineering and uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate all argue in favor of erring on the side of caution and not trying to closely time the peak in excess returns. The violent unwinding of short-volatility trades in January highlighted the potential for a quick and nasty repricing of corporate bonds spreads on any disappointments regarding the default rate outlook. Conclusion Both our top-down and bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors show that overall corporate finances improved last year on the back of a mini profit boom. Nonetheless, leverage remained on the up-escalator as businesses continued to pile up debt and return cash to shareholders. Our sample of individual companies reveals that the re-leveraging of the corporate sector has been widespread across industries and ratings. We have clearly entered the late stage of the credit cycle. Rising interest rates will not, on their own, trigger a downgrade and default wave in the next few years. However, debt levels are elevated and the starting point for interest coverage ratios is low. This means that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. The interest coverage ratio for the non-financial corporate sector will likely drop to all-time lows even in a mild recession. Downgrades will proliferate when the rating agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over. Last month's Overview listed the top economic indicators we are watching in order to time our exit from risky assets. Inflation expectations will be key; A rise in the 10-year inflation breakeven rate above 2.3% would be a warning that the FOMC will need to ramp up the speed of rate hikes to avoid a large inflation overshoot. While we are also watching a list of economic indicators, they have not provided any lead time for corporate spreads in the past (since the latter are themselves leading indicators). Our profit indicators are probably more likely to give an early warning sign than the economic data. Indeed, the profit outlook will be particularly important in this cycle because of the heightened sensitivity of corporate financial health changes in the macro backdrop. None of our earnings indicators are flashing a warning sign at the moment. A recent Special Report on corporate pricing power found that almost 80% of the sectors covered are lifting selling prices, at a time when labor costs are still subdued.3 These trends are captured by our U.S. Equity Strategy service's margin proxy, which remains in positive territory (Chart II-14). The margin proxy fell into negative territory ahead of the start of the last three sustained widening phases in U.S. corporate bonds. Chart II-14For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy The bottom line is that we remain overweight corporates within fixed income portfolios for now, but a downgrade would be warranted given some combination of rising core consumer price inflation, a further increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 2.3%, and/or a deterioration in our margin proxy. We expect to pull the trigger later this year but the timing is uncertain. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 The accumulation of equity buybacks, net equity withdrawal, dividends and capital spending are all adjusted by the accumulation of GDP during the expansion to facilitate comparison across business cycles. 2 The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios that are used by rating agencies to rate individual companies. We have applied the approach to the entire non-financial corporate sector, using the Fed's Flow of Funds data. To facilitate comparison with corporate spreads, the ratios are inverted so that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health. The CHM has a very good track record of heralding trend changes in investment-grade and high-yield spreads over many cycles. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Service Weekly Report, "Corporate Pricing Power Update," dated January 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Volatility returned to financial markets in February. The good news is that it appears to have been a healthy technical correction that has tempered frothy market conditions, rather than the start of an equity bear phase. The VIX has shot from very low levels to above the long-term mean, indicating that there is less complacency among investors. This is confirmed by the pullback in our Composite Sentiment Indicator, although it remains at the high end of its historical range. Our Composite Speculation Indicator is also still hovering at a high level, suggesting that frothiness has not been fully washed out. Similarly, our Equity Valuation Indicator has pulled back, but remains close to our threshold for overvaluation at +1 standard deviations. Our Equity Technical Indicator came close, but did not give a 'sell' signal in February (i.e. it remained above its 9-month moving average). Our Monetary Indicator moved slightly further into 'restrictive' territory in February. We highlight in the Overview section that monetary policy will become a significant headwind once long-term inflation expectations have fully normalized. It is constructive that the indicators for near-term earnings growth remain upbeat; both the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index continue to point to further increases in 12-month forward earnings estimates. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) returned to its bullish equity signal in February, following a temporary shift to neutral in January. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. However, the WTP for the U.S. market appears to have rolled over, suggesting that flows are becoming less constructive for U.S. stocks. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. At the margin, the WTP indicator suggest that flows favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. Treasurys moved closer to 'inexpensive' territory in February, but are not there yet. Extended technicals suggest a period of consolidation, but value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The call on EM local bonds boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Forthcoming EM currency depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds. EM currencies positively correlate with commodities prices but not with domestic real interest rates. Widening U.S. twin deficits are not a reason to be long EM currencies. There has historically been no consistent relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. For investors who have to be invested in EM domestic bonds, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Feature The stampede into EM local currency bonds has persisted even amid recent jitters in global equity markets. Notably, surging U.S./DM bond yields have failed to cause a spike in EM local yields, despite past positive correlations (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? The main reason is the resilience of EM currencies. The latter have not sold off even during the recent correction in global share prices. In high-yielding EM domestic bond markets, total returns are substantially affected by exchange rates. Not only do U.S. dollar total returns on local bonds suffer when EM currencies depreciate, but also weaker EM exchange rates cause spikes in domestic bond yields (Chart I-2). Consequently, the call on EM local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets, boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Chart I-2EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields We are negative on EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro. The basis for our view is two-fold: Strong growth in the U.S. and higher U.S. bond yields should be supportive of the greenback vis-à-vis EM currencies; the same applies to euro area growth and the euro against EM exchange rates; Weaker growth in China should weigh on commodities prices and, in turn, on EM currencies. So far, this view has not played out. In fact, negative sentiment on the U.S. dollar has recently been amplified by concerns about America's widening fiscal and current account deficits. In fact, one might argue that EM local bonds stand to benefit from the potential widening in U.S. twin deficits and the flight out of the U.S. dollar. We address the issue of U.S. twin deficits first. Twin Deficits And The U.S. Dollar... The recent narrative that the dollar typically depreciates during periods of widening twin deficits is not supported by historical evidence. We are not suggesting that twin deficits lead to currency appreciation. Our argument is that twin deficits have historically coincided with both appreciation and depreciation of the U.S. dollar. Chart I-3 exhibits the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the fiscal and current account balances. It appears that there is no consistent relationship between the fiscal and current account balances and the exchange rate. Chart I-3No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar To produce a quantitative measure of the twin deficits, we sum up both the fiscal and current account balances. Chart I-4 demonstrates the relationship between the latter measure and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar. This analysis encompasses the entire history of the floating U.S. dollar since 1971. Chart I-4Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar The vertical lines denote the tax cuts under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1986, and under former U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. As can be seen from Chart I-4, there is no stable relationship between the twin deficits and the greenback. In the 1970s, there was no consistent relationship at all; In the first half of the 1980s, the twin deficits widened substantially, but the dollar rallied dramatically. The tailwind behind the rally was tightening monetary policy and rising/high real U.S. interest rates; From 1985 through 1993, there was no consistent relationship between America's twin deficits and the currency; From 1994 until 2001, the greenback appreciated as the twin deficits narrowed, particularly the fiscal deficit; From 2001 through 2011, the dollar was in a bear market as the twin deficits expanded; From 2011 until 2016, the shrinking-to-stable twin deficits were accompanied by a U.S. dollar rally. Bottom Line: We infer from these charts that there has historically been no stable relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. ... And A Missing Variable: Interest Rates Twin deficits are often associated with rising inflation. In fact, a widening current account deficit can mask hidden price pressures. In particular, an economy that over-consumes - consumes more than it produces - can satisfy its demand via imports without exerting pressure on the economy's domestic productive capacity. Booming imports will lead to a widening trade deficit rather than higher consumer price inflation. Hence, in an open economy, over-consumption can lead to a widening current account deficit, rather than rising inflation. A currency is likely to plunge amid widening twin deficits if the central bank is behind the inflation curve. In such a case, the low real interest rates would undermine the value of the exchange rate. If the central bank, however, embarks on monetary tightening that is adequate, the currency can in fact strengthen amid growing twin deficits. In this scenario, rising real interest rates would support the currency. With respect to the U.S. dollar today, its future trajectory depends on the Fed, and the market's perception of its policy stance. If the market discerns that the Fed is behind the curve, the greenback will plummet. By contrast, if the market reckons that the Fed policy response is appropriate, and U.S. real interest rates are sufficiently high/rising, the dollar could in fact appreciate amid widening twin deficits. Specifically, the U.S. dollar was in a major bull market in the early 1980s, with Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and the ensuing widening of the country's twin deficits doing little to thwart the dollar bull market (Chart I-4). In turn, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were followed by a major dollar bear market. The main culprit between these two and other episodes was probably real interest rates. U.S. real interest rates/bond yields rose between 1981 and 1985, generating an enormous dollar rally. In the decade of the 2000s, by contrast, U.S. real interest rates fell and that coincided with a major bear market in the greenback (Chart I-4). Overall, the combination of U.S. twin deficits and real bond yields together, help better explain U.S. dollar dynamics than twin deficits alone. We agree that America's twin deficits will widen materially. That said, odds are that the Fed commits to further rate hikes and that U.S. bond yields continue to rise. In fact, not only are U.S. inflation breakeven yields climbing, but TIPS (real) yields have also spiked significantly. Rising real yields, which in our opinion have more upside, should support the U.S. dollar. As a final point, if the Fed falls behind the curve and the dollar continues to tumble, the markets could begin to fear a material rise in U.S. inflationary pressures. That scenario would actually resemble market dynamics that prevailed before the 1987 stock market crash. Although this is a negative scenario for the U.S. currency and is, by default, bullish for EM exchange rates and their local bonds, this is not ultimately an optimistic scenario for global risk assets. Bottom Line: Twin deficits are not solely sufficient to produce a currency bear market. Twin deficits accompanied by a central bank that is behind the inflation curve - i.e., combined with low/falling real interest rates - are what generate sufficient conditions for currency depreciation. EM Currencies And Commodities Many EM exchange rates - such as those in Latin America, as well as South African, Russian, Malaysian and Indonesian currencies - are primarily driven by commodities prices. Not surprisingly, the underlying currency index of the EM local bond benchmark index (the JPM GBI index) - which excludes China, India, Korea and Taiwan - positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-5). Hence, getting commodities prices right is of paramount importance to the majority of high-yielding EM local bonds. We have the following observations: First, investors' net long positions in both oil and copper are extremely elevated (Chart I-6). The last datapoint is as of February 16. Any rebound in the U.S. dollar or mounting concerns about China's growth could produce a meaningful drop in commodities prices as investors rush to close their long positions. Second, we maintain that China's intake of commodities is bound to decelerate, as decelerating credit growth and local governments' budget constraints lead to curtailment of infrastructure and property investment (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Currencies Positively Correlate ##br##With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Positively Correlate With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Positively Correlate With Commodities Prices Chart I-6Investors Are Very Long##br## Copper And Oil Investors Are Very Long Copper And Oil Investors Are Very Long Copper And Oil Chart I-7Slowdown In ##br##China's Capex Slowdown In China's Capex Slowdown In China's Capex Strong growth in the U.S. and EU will not offset the decline in China's intake of raw materials (excluding oil). China accounts for 50% of global demand for industrial metals. America's consumption of industrial metals is about 6-7 times smaller. For crude oil, China's share of global consumption is 14% compared with 20% and 15% for the U.S. and EU, respectively. We do not expect outright contraction in China's crude imports or consumption. The point is that when financial markets begin to price in weaker mainland growth or the U.S. dollar rebounds, oil prices will retreat as investors reduce their record high net long positions. Finally, even though EM twin deficits have ameliorated in recent years, they remain wide (Chart I-8). In turn, the majority of these countries have been financing their deficits by volatile foreign portfolio flows, as FDIs into EM remain largely depressed. If commodities prices relapse and EM currencies depreciate, there will be a period of reversal in foreign portfolio inflows into EM. While EM real local bonds yields are reasonably high, they are unlikely to prevent outflows if the U.S. dollar rallies. In the past, neither high absolute EM real yields nor their wide spreads over U.S. TIPS prevented EM currency depreciation (Chart I-9). Chart I-8AEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide Chart I-8BEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide Chart I-9EM Local Real Yields Do Not ##br##Drive Their Currencies EM Local Real Yields Do Not Drive Their Currencies EM Local Real Yields Do Not Drive Their Currencies EM Local Bonds: Country Allocation Strategy Chart I-10 attempts to identify pockets of value in EM domestic bonds. It exhibits the sum of current account and fiscal balances on the X axis, and domestic bond yields deflated by headline inflation on the Y axis. Chart I-10Identifying Pockets Of Value In EM Domestic Bonds EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits Markets in the upper-right corner should be favored as they offer high real yields and maintain healthy fiscal and current account balances. Bond markets in the lower-left corner should be underweighted. They have low inflation-adjusted yields and large current account and fiscal deficits. Based on these metrics as well as fundamental analysis, our recommended country allocation for EM domestic bond portfolios has been and remains: Overweights: Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Neutral: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Hungary, Chile and Colombia. Underweights: Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia. The below elaborates on Brazil, Russia and South Africa. Russia Fiscal and monetary policies are extremely tight. While they are curtailing the economic recovery, they are very friendly for creditors. Interest rates deflated by both headline and core consumer price inflation are at their highest on record, government spending is lackluster, and the new fiscal rule has replenished the country's foreign currency reserves (Chart I-11). Besides, the government's budget assumption for oil prices is very conservative - in the low-$40s per barrel for this year and 2019. Commercial banks have been increasing provisions, even though the NPL ratio is falling. In fact, Russia is well advanced in terms of both corporate and household deleveraging as well as banking system adjustment. On the whole, having experienced two large recessions in the past 10 years and having pursued extremely orthodox fiscal and monetary policies, Russian markets have become much more insulated from negative external shocks than many of their peers. In brief, Russian financial markets have become low-beta markets,1 and they will outperform their EM peers in a selloff even if oil prices slide. Brazil Brazilian local bonds offer the highest inflation-adjusted yields. However, unlike Russia, Brazil has untenable public debt dynamics, and its politics remain a wild card. The public debt-to-GDP ratio is 16% in Russia and 80% in Brazil. The fiscal deficit in Brazil stands at a whopping 8% of GDP, and interest payments on public debt are equal to 6% of GDP. Without major fiscal reforms, Brazil's public debt will continue to surge and will likely reach almost 100% of GDP by the end of 2020. High real interest rates are not only holding back the recovery but are also making public debt dynamics unsustainable. Chart I-12 illustrates that nominal GDP growth is well below local government bond yields. Chart I-11Continue Favoring ##br##Russian Local Bonds Continue Favoring Russian Local Bonds Continue Favoring Russian Local Bonds Chart I-12Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful ##br##For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil needs either much higher nominal growth or major fiscal tightening to stem the surge in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. The necessary fiscal reforms - social security restructuring or primary budget surpluses - are not politically feasible right now. Meanwhile, materially higher nominal growth can be achieved only if interest rates are brought down quickly and drastically and the currency is devalued meaningfully. Hence, the primary risk to Brazilian local bonds is the exchange rate. The currency is at risk from potentially lower commodities prices on the external side, and continuous public debt deterioration, debt monetization or drastic interest rate cuts on the domestic side. Remarkably, Chart I-13 demonstrates that historically real interest rates in Brazil do not explain fluctuations in the real. The currency, rather, positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Brazil: No Relationship Between##br## Real Yields And Currency Brazil: No Relationship Between Real Yields And Currency Brazil: No Relationship Between Real Yields And Currency Chart I-14The Brazilian Real And ##br##Commodities Prices The Brazilian Real And Commodities Prices The Brazilian Real And Commodities Prices It is possible that policymakers find an optimal balance between these adjustment paths, and financial markets continue to rally. However, with the current government lacking any political capital and great uncertainty surrounding the October presidential elections; the outlook is very risky, We recommend a neutral allocation to Brazilian local bonds for EM domestic bond portfolios. South Africa The South African rand and fixed-income markets have surged in the wake of Cyril Ramaphosa's win of the ANC leadership elections and his taking over of the presidency from Jacob Zuma. This has been devastating to our short rand and underweight local bonds positions. Chart I-15The South African Rand And Metals Prices The South African Rand And Metals Prices The South African Rand And Metals Prices There is no doubt that President Ramaphosa will adopt some market-friendly policies. This will constitute a major change from Zuma's handling of the economy in the past nine years. Yet the outlook for the rand is also contingent on global markets. If commodities prices do not relapse and EM risk assets generally perform well, the rand will continue strengthening, and local bond yields will decline further. However, if metals prices begin to drop and EM currencies sell off, it will be hard for the South African currency to rally further (Chart I-15). While we acknowledge the potential for positive political announcements and actions from the new political leadership, the main drivers of the rand, in our opinion, remain the trends in the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. Some investors might be tempted to compare South Africa to Brazil in terms of political headwinds turning into tailwinds. From a political vantage point, it is a fair comparison. Nevertheless, investors should put Brazil's rally into perspective. If commodities prices did not rise in 2016-2017, the Brazilian real would not have rallied. In brief, external tailwinds are as - if not more - important for EM high-yielding currencies than domestic political developments. Positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa. This position was stipulated by unorthodox macro policies of the previous government. This trade has been flat since its initiation on June 28, 2017. Weighing pros and cons, we are reluctant to upgrade the South African rand and its fixed-income market at the moment because of our negative view on metals prices and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Investment Conclusions The broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is at record oversold levels (Chart I-16). Given the forthcoming U.S. fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely lift its dots and the greenback will rebound. This is bearish for EM currencies, especially if China's growth slows and commodities prices roll over, as we expect. EM exchange rate depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets. Foreign holdings of EM local bonds are elevated (Table I-1). Hence, risks of unwinding of some positions are not trivial. Chart I-16The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally Table I-1Foreign Ownership Of EM Local Bonds Is High EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits Nevertheless, as we have argued in the past, EM local bonds offer great diversification benefits to all type of portfolios, as their correlations with many asset classes are low. For domestic bond investors who have to be invested, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. As to the sovereign and corporate credit markets, asset allocators should compare these with U.S. corporate credit. Consistent with our negative view on EM currencies and equities vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts, we recommend favoring U.S. corporates versus EM sovereign and corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm," dated March 8, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations