Commodities & Energy Sector

Dear Clients, Please note there was an error in the Recommend Asset Allocation table published on November 1, 2017. This has now been amended. We apologize for the confusion and any inconvenience it may have caused. Best Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation Reflation Trade Returns Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update The market mood has shifted remarkably quickly over the past couple of months. The probability of a December Fed rate hike has moved up from 20% in early September to close to 100%, pushing the 10-year Treasury bond yield from 2.0% to 2.4% and causing the trade-weighted U.S. dollar to appreciate by 2%, and Emerging Market equities to underperform. We expect this trend to continue. Global growth continues to surprise to the upside (Chart 1). The softness in U.S. inflation this year is likely to reverse over coming quarters - an argument supported by the New York Fed's new Underlying Inflation Gauge, which indicates that sustained movements in inflation continue to trend higher (Chart 2). This makes it likely that the Fed will move ahead with its forecast three rate hikes in 2018, which the market has not yet priced in (Chart 3) - the implied probability of this is only 10%. Consequently, rates have further to rise: our fair value for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield currently is 2.7%. And the increasing gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates suggests that the dollar can appreciate further (Chart 4). All this supports our view that risk assets (equities and corporate credit) should outperform over the next 12 months, with developed government bonds producing a negative return, and emerging markets lagging because of rising rates and the stronger dollar (and a possible slowdown in China, as it focuses on reforming its economy and cleaning up the debt situation). Chart 1Growth Surprising To The Upside Growth Surprising To The Upside Growth Surprising To The Upside Chart 2Underlying Inflation Still Trending Up Underlying Inflation Still Trending Up Underlying Inflation Still Trending Up Chart 3Market Expects Fed To Move Only Slowly Market Expects Fed To Move Only Slowly Market Expects Fed To Move Only Slowly Chart 4Rate Gap Suggests Dollar Appreciation Rate Gap Suggests Dollar Appreciation Rate Gap Suggests Dollar Appreciation The key question, though, is how long this positive scenario can continue. With stock market valuations expensive (Chart 5) and investors fully invested, though not yet euphoric (Chart 6), we are clearly in late cycle. Rising rates could put a dampener on growth. Chart 5 Equities Close To Extremely Overvalued Equities Close To Extremely Overvalued Equities Close To Extremely Overvalued Chart 6Investors Are Fully Invested, But Cautious Investors Are Fully Invested, But Cautious Investors Are Fully Invested, But Cautious We find the Fed policy cycle a useful tool for thinking about probable investment returns from different assets (Chart 7). The best quadrant for risk assets is when the Fed is easing and policy is easy (with the Fed Funds Rate below the neutral rate). Currently we are in the bottom-right quadrant (Fed tightening, but not yet in the tight zone), which also has produced attractive returns for equities and credit. But once the Fed Funds Rate (FFR) moves above the neutral rate, returns from risk assets are on average poor and, historically, recession often followed quite quickly. How much longer do we have before Fed policy moves into the top-right quadrant? The Fed's own estimate of the neutral rate, in real terms, is 0.3%. The current real FFR (using core PCE inflation, 1.3%, as the deflator) is -0.17 (Chart 8). This implies that it will take only two further Fed hikes to move into the tight zone, which could happen as soon as March. This is why the outlook for inflation is critical. If, as the Fed forecasts and we also expect, core PCE inflation rises to 2%, it will be another five hikes before policy turns tight - we are unlikely to get there until early 2019. Chart 7The Fed Policy Cycle Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 8How Far From The Tight Zone? How Far From The Tight Zone? How Far From The Tight Zone? For now, therefore, we continue to recommend an overweight on risk assets and pro-cyclical portfolio tilts. Global monetary policy remains easy and we see no indicators that suggest growth is slowing or that the risk of recession over the next 12 months is rising. The risks to this optimistic scenario (a hawkish Fed, over-eager structural reform in China, provocation from North Korea) seem limited. But we also continue to warn of the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020 caused, as so often, by excessive Fed tightening. We see, therefore, the possibility of our turning more defensive somewhere in mid-2018. Equities: We prefer developed over emerging market equities. Rising interest rates and an appreciating dollar will be headwinds for EM. Moreover, Xi Jinping's speech at the Communist Party Congress hinted at supply side structural reforms, overcapacity reduction, and deleveraging efforts. A renewed reform effort could dampen Chinese growth somewhat which, as in 2013-15, would negatively impact EM equities (Chart 9). Within DM, we are overweight euro zone and Japanese equities, which are higher beta, have stronger earnings momentum, and benefit from looser monetary policy. Fixed Income: We expect bonds to underperform over coming quarters, as U.S. inflation picks up and the Fed moves raises rates in line with its "dots". Corporate credit still has some attractions, provided the economic expansion continues. U.S. sub-investment grade bonds, in particular, have an attractive default-adjusted yield, as long as a strong economy keeps the default rate over the next 12 months to the historically low 2% our model suggests (Chart 10). The pick-up in inflation we expect would mean inflation-linked bonds outperform nominal bonds. Chart 9Slowing China Would Hurt EM Equities Slowing China Would Hurt EM Equities Slowing China Would Hurt EM Equities Chart 10Junk Attractive If Defaults Stay This Low Junk Attractive If Defaults Stay This Low Junk Attractive If Defaults Stay This Low Currencies: The ECB delivered a dovish tapering last month, extending its asset purchases until at least September 2018 and emphasizing that its current low interest rates will continue "well past the horizon of our net asset purchases". Given this, and the gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates (Chart 4), we expect moderate further euro weakness over coming months. The dollar is likely to appreciate even more against the yen. There are the first tentative signs of inflation emerging in Japan (Chart 11) which, combined with the Bank of Japan sticking to its 0% 10-year JGB target and rising global interest rates, could push the yen to 120 against the dollar over coming months. Commodities: BCA's energy strategists recently revised up their crude oil forecasts on the back of strong demand, a likely extension of the OPEC agreement until at least end-2018, and possible supply disruptions in Iraq, Venezuela and other troubled regions.1 They see inventories continuing to draw down until at least 2H 2018 (Chart 12). Accordingly, they forecast $65 a barrel for Brent and $63 for WTI and flag upside risk to those projections. The outlook for industrial and precious metals, however, is less positive. A stronger dollar and a shift in the growth drivers in China will depress prices for base metals. Rising real interest rates will hurt gold, although we still like precious metals as a long-term hedge. Chart 11First Signs Of Inflation In Japan? First Signs Of Inflation In Japan? First Signs Of Inflation In Japan? Chart 12Oil Inventory Drawdowns Support Higher Price Oil Inventory Drawdowns Support Higher Price Oil Inventory Drawdowns Support Higher Price Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Forecast Lifted As Market Tightens," dated 19 October 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

A capex revival is underway, powered by exceptionally strong business and consumer sentiment, the breadth of which covers virtually all developed economies. This global capex upcycle should underpin top-line growth and margin expansion for the industrial conglomerates index, whose product and geographic diversification ensures exposure to the global upswing. However, the index has underperformed the broad market, dragged down by heavyweight GE and its specific headwinds. Further, the index's highest exposure sectors (namely aerospace, health care equipment, energy equipment & services and utilities) are mostly weighted negatively in our overall sector view. Adding it up, the negatives offset the positives and, in the context of fair valuations, we expect the S&P industrial conglomerates index to perform in line with the overall market. We are initiating coverage with a neutral rating. The key theme that has been driving our investment thesis in U.S. Equity Strategy in the past quarter has been accelerating global industrial production and trade, with a corresponding rotation out of defensive and into cyclical stocks. We have been adjusting our portfolio accordingly and it now has a deep cyclical bent with leverage to a burgeoning capex cycle. Enticing Macro Outlook Industrial conglomerates capitalize on most of these themes: they are globally-oriented and capex-driven, and leading indicators of final demand suggest that earnings should accelerate in the near-term. Capex Upcycle On the domestic front, regional Fed surveys of domestic capex intentions and the ISM manufacturing survey are hitting modern highs; both have been excellent indicators of a capex upcycle and the signal is unambiguously positive (Chart 1). Our Capex Indicator also corroborates this message. Durable goods orders have already surged and inventories have reverted to a more normal level, coming out of the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession (Chart 2). This implies increasingly resilient pricing power from a demand-driven capital goods upcycle. Further, the capital goods cycle has significant room to run as new orders remain well below the 2013-2014 levels. Chart 1Exceptionally Strong Sentiment... Exceptionally Strong Sentiment… Exceptionally Strong Sentiment… Chart 2...Is Already Reflected In A Capex Upcycle …Is Already Reflected In A Capex Upcycle …Is Already Reflected In A Capex Upcycle Chart 3Capital Goods Demand Is Globally Synchronous Capital Goods Demand Is Globally Synchronous Capital Goods Demand Is Globally Synchronous The global picture echoes the domestic, with the global manufacturing PMI surging to a six-year high. The global strength is remarkably broad: all 46 of the economies tracked by the OECD are expected to see gains in 2017, a first since the GFC, and the BCA global leading economic indicator is signaling all-clear (Chart 3). U.S. Dollar Reflation The greenback's slide in 2017 should further boost global demand for domestic exports. In fact, given the diversity of industries served by the industrial conglomerates and the relatively high proportion of foreign sales (Table 1), the U.S. dollar is the single largest driver of both sales and earnings (Chart 4). Due to the lagged impact on results from the currency, industrial conglomerates margins should benefit from translation gains in the next two quarters, regardless of where the U.S. dollar moves. Table 1Conglomerates More Global Than Industrial Peers Industrial Conglomerates: Rebooting Industrial Conglomerates: Rebooting Chart 4U.S. Dollar Drives Conglomerate Profits U.S. Dollar Drives Conglomerate Profits U.S. Dollar Drives Conglomerate Profits But GE Weighs On The Index With the enormously supportive demand environment in mind, one could safely assume that the globally integrated niche industrial conglomerates index has been a strong performer in 2017. That would be true were it not for index heavyweight (and laggard) General Electric. Excluding GE from this index, industrial conglomerates have outperformed the S&P 500 by 20% since the start of the year (Chart 5). However, GE represents 40% of the index (Chart 5) and its current transformation continues to weigh heavily on its share price and, hence, the index at large. The new CEO, who took over earlier this month, has stated that "everything is on the table" as part of a $20 billion target for divestitures over the coming two years. The current fear among investors is that GE will need to reduce its dividend to preserve enough liquidity to continue growing despite the fairly synchronous storm in its end-markets. In March, 2009, GE's share price reached its modern nadir, a level not seen since the recession of the early 1990's, a week following its dividend cut announcement. While hardly analogous to GE today (recall that a cash crisis at GE Capital threatened to bankrupt the entire firm), the risk of a dividend cut will keep GE's share price suppressed, and likely hold the overall index hostage. Payout ratios in the industrial conglomerates index reflect GE's cash flow woes and have now surpassed the pre-dividend cut level during the GFC (Chart 6). This largely reflects cash contraction, combined with an unwillingness to even halt dividend growth. Regardless, GE investors clearly anticipate the new CEO will reduce the dividend, having pushed the yield to its highest level since the last dividend cut (Chart 6). Chart 5GE Still Dominates The Index GE Still Dominates The Index GE Still Dominates The Index Chart 6A Dividend Cut Looks To Be In The Cards A Dividend Cut Looks To Be In The Cards A Dividend Cut Looks To Be In The Cards Soft End-Markets Backdrop From the mid-1990's until 2007, the narrative of the S&P industrial conglomerates index was the rise and fall of GE Capital, as evidenced by the index' price. In 2015, the now largely complete sale of the majority of GE Capital was announced, realigning the company as an industrial manufacturer. Accordingly, analyzing the key end-market industries that the S&P industrial conglomerates cater to is in order: aerospace, healthcare, oil & gas and utilities. Chart 7Aerospace Profits Look Set To Fall Aerospace Profits Look Set To Fall Aerospace Profits Look Set To Fall Chart 8Health Care Equipment Pricing Collapsing Health Care Equipment Pricing Collapsing Health Care Equipment Pricing Collapsing Aerospace (Underweight recommendation) - We downgraded the BCA aerospace index to underweight at the end of 2015, corresponding fairly closely to the peak of the aerospace orders cycle (Chart 7). Since then, orders have fallen by half reflecting a downturn in the commercial aerospace cycle. While shipments have been falling, the decline has been much less precipitous as manufacturers have been running down backlogs. Historically, maintenance has buffered aerospace profits, repair and consumables activity, though weak current pricing power suggests that this may prove less sustainable than in previous cycles. Both GE & HON share extensive exposure to aerospace demand as it represented 23% and 38% of 2016 revenues, respectively. Health Care Equipment (Neutral recommendation) - We reduced our recommendation to neutral earlier this year as weaker demand no longer supported the thesis of an earnings-led outperformance. Since then the industry's outlook has not improved as demand has downshifted and pricing has cooled substantially; orders and production both crested last year and pricing power has contracted relative to overall since December 2016 (Chart 8). This bodes ill for medical equipment margins. Health care equipment represented 16% and 18% of GE & MMM 2016 revenues, respectively. Energy Equipment & Services (Overweight recommendation) - Energy Equipment & Services is our only overweight recommended sector relevant to the industrial conglomerates analysis. We upgraded in late 2016 (and doubled down on June 2) based on three key factors: troughing rig counts, cresting global oil inventories and falling production growth. Two of these factors have come to fruition: the global rig count bottomed in 2015, and has staged its best recovery since 2009 (Chart 9) and the growth in total OECD oil stocks is moderating rapidly with recent large storage draws. The key missing ingredient has been pricing power, which should eventually turn up if rig counts prove resilient. Energy equipment & services represented 11% of GE's 2016 revenues. Utilities (Underweight recommendation) - As previously noted, a key macro theme in U.S. Equity Strategy is accelerating global industrial production and trade. Utilities tend to move in the opposite direction of that theme given their safe haven status (top panel, Chart 10). Combined with falling domestic electricity production and capacity utilization, and rising turbine & generator inventories, the industry's outlook is bleak (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). GE's Power segment is one of the world's largest gas and steam turbine manufacturers and delivered 24% of 2016 revenues. Investment Recommendation A roaring, globally synchronous capital goods upcycle should mostly keep sales and profits buoyant in this industrials subsector. However, high concentration in one stock, which is experiencing a greater than normal amount of flux, adds significant specific risk. Further, we are less optimistic about the key industries served by the industrial conglomerates than we are for the economy at large, implying more opportunity for outperformance from other, more focused, S&P industrials peers. If valuations were particularly compelling they could provide a cushion to any profit mishap, but this is not the case. Our Valuation Indicator is in the neutral zone and, while our Technical Indicator is in oversold territory, it has shown an ability to remain at these levels for prolonged periods (Chart 11). Chart 9Energy Services Is A Bright Spot Energy Services Is A Bright Spot Energy Services Is A Bright Spot Chart 10Utilities Are In A Deep Cyclical Decline Utilities Are In A Deep Cyclical Decline Utilities Are In A Deep Cyclical Decline Chart 11Valuations Are Not Compelling Valuations Are Not Compelling Valuations Are Not Compelling Bottom Line: Netting it out, we think the S&P industrial conglomerates index should perform broadly in line with the overall market. Accordingly, we are initiating coverage with a neutral rating. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INDCX - GE, MMM, HON, ROP. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The macro environment remains positive for risk assets. Nonetheless, the shadow of the '87 stock market crash is a reminder that major market corrections can occur even when the earnings and economic growth backdrop is upbeat. Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of easier financial conditions and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should overweight Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments). High-yield relative value is decent after accounting for the favorable default outlook. It is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late cycle phase. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. The risk of disappointment is therefore elevated. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and provide dry powder to boost exposure after the correction. Feature The October anniversary of the '87 stock market crash was a reminder to investors that major market corrections can arrive out of the blue. With hindsight, there were some warning signs evident before the crash. Nonetheless, the speed and viciousness of the correction caught the vast majority of investors by surprise, in large part because the economy was performing well (outside of some yawning imbalances such as the U.S. current account deficit). Many worried that the 20% drop in the S&P 500 would trigger a recession, but the economy did not skip a beat and it was not long before the equity market recouped the losses. We view the '87 crash as a correction rather than a bear market. BCA's definition of a bear market is a combination of magnitude (at least a 15% decline) and duration (lasting at least for six months). Bear markets are usually associated with economic recessions. Corrections tend to be short-lived because they are not associated with an economic downturn. None of our forward-looking indicators suggest that a recession is in the cards in the near term for any of the major economies. Even the risk of a financial accident or economic pothole in China has diminished in our view. As discussed below, the global economy is firing on almost all cylinders. Chart I-1Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Nonetheless, there are some parallels today with the mid-1980s. A Special Report sent to all BCA clients in October provides a retrospective on the '87 crash.1 One concern is that the proliferation of financial computer algorithms and derivatives is a parallel to the popularity of portfolio insurance in the 1980s, which was blamed for turbocharging the selling pressure when the market downturn gathered pace in October. My colleague Doug Peta downplays the risks inherent in the ETF market in the Special Report, but argues that automatic selling will again reinforce the fall in prices once it starts. It is also worrying that equity valuation is much more stretched than was the case in the summer of 1987 based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE, Chart I-1). The CAPE is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks. In contrast, the CAPE was close to its long-term average in 1987. Quantitative easing and extremely low interest rates have pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. It has also contributed to today's extremely low readings on implied volatility. The fact that the Fed is slowly taking away the punchbowl and that the ECB is dialing back its asset purchase program only add to the risk of a sharp correction. The Good News For now though, investors are focusing on the improving global growth backdrop and the still-solid earnings picture. While the S&P 500 again made new highs in October, it was the Nikkei that stole the show among the major countries. Impressively, the surge in the Japanese stock market was not on the back of a significantly weaker yen. As we highlighted last month, risk assets are being supported by the three legged stool of robust earnings growth, low volatility and yield levels in government bonds, and the view that inflation will remain quiescent for the foreseeable future. The fact that the global growth impulse is broadly-based is icing on the cake because it reduces lingering fears of secular stagnation. Even emerging economies have joined the growth party, while a weak U.S. dollar has tempered fears of a financial accident in this space. Our forward-looking growth indicators are upbeat (Chart I-2). Our demand indicators in the major economies remain quite bullish, especially for capital spending (not shown). Animal spirits are beginning to stir. Moreover, financial conditions remain growth-friendly, especially in the U.S., and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously for those that are tightening or tapering. The global PMI broke to a new high in October, and the economic surprise index for the major economies has surged in recent months. Our global LEI remains in a strong uptrend and its diffusion index shifted back into positive territory, having experiencing a worrisome dip into negative territory earlier this year. We expect the global growth upturn will persist for at least the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, although this should not occur until 2019. It is thus too early to expect the equity market to begin to anticipate the associated downturn in profit growth. Earnings: Japan A Star Performer It is still early days in the Q3 earnings season, but the mini cyclical rebound from the 2015/16 profit recession in the major economies is still playing out. The bright spots at the global level outside of energy are industrials, materials, technology and consumer staples (Chart I-3). All four are benefitting from strengthening top line growth and rising operating margins. Chart I-2Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Chart I-3Global Earnings By Sector Global Earnings By Sector Global Earnings By Sector The U.S. is further advanced in the mini-cycle and EPS growth is near its peak on a 4-quarter moving total basis. The expected topping out in profit growth is more a reflection of challenging year-on-year comparisons than a deterioration in the underlying fundamentals. The hurricanes will take a bite out of third quarter earnings, but this effect will be temporary. Moreover, oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Our commodity strategists recently lifted their 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI to $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively. The global uptick in GDP growth, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 are the principal drivers of our revised outlook. We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices. While U.S. financials stocks have cheered the prospects that Congress may pass a tax bill sometime in early 2018, sell-side analysts have been brutally downgrading financial sector EPS estimates. This has dealt a blow to net earnings revisions in the sector. Expected hurricane-related losses are probably the main culprit, especially in the insurance sector. Nonetheless, our equity sector strategists argue that such indiscriminate downgrades are unwarranted, and we would lean against such pessimism.2 Recent profit results corroborate our positive sector bias, although we are still early in the earnings season. European profits will suffer to some extent in the third quarter due to the lagged effects of previous euro strength. The same will be true in the fourth quarter, although we expect this headwind to diminish early in 2018. That leaves Japan as the star profit performer among the majors in the near term. The recent surge in foreign flows into the Japanese market suggests that global investors are beginning to embrace the upbeat EPS story. Abe's election win in October means that the current monetary stance will remain in place. The ruling LDP's shift away from austerity (e.g. abandoning the primary balance target) may also be lifting growth expectations. A Return To The Great Moderation? Chart I-4Market Correlation And The ERP bca.bca_mp_2017_11_01_s1_c4 bca.bca_mp_2017_11_01_s1_c4 A lot of the good news is already discounted in equity prices. The depressed level of the VIX and the drop in risk asset correlations this year signal significant complacency. Large institutional investors are reportedly selling volatility and thus dampening vol across asset classes. But there is surely more to it. It appears that investors believe we have returned to the pre-Lehman period between 1995 and 2006 when the Great Moderation in macro volatility contributed to low correlations among stocks within the equity market (Chart I-4). The idea is that low perceived macroeconomic volatility during that period had diminished the dispersion of growth and inflation forecasts, thereby trimming the variance of interest rate projections. This allowed equity investors to focus on alpha rather than beta, given less uncertainty about the macro outlook. Of course, the Great Recession and financial market crisis brought the Great Moderation to a crashing end. Correlations rocketed up and investors demanded a higher equity risk premium to hold stocks. Today, dispersion in the outlooks for growth and interest rates have fallen back to pre-Lehman levels, helping to explain the low levels of implied volatility and correlation in the equity market (Chart I-5). Some of this can be justified by fundamentals. The onset of a broadly-based global expansion phase has likely calmed lingering fears that the global economy is constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. Investor uncertainty regarding economic policy has moderated as well (bottom panel). Historically, implied volatility tended to fall during previous periods when global industrial production was strong and global earnings were rising across a broad swath of countries (Chart I-6). Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service points out that, during the later stages of the cycle, equity sector correlations tend to fall as earnings fundamentals become more important performance drivers and sector differentiation generates alpha, as the broad market enters the last stage of the bull market. Similarly, the VIX can fluctuate at low levels for an extended period when global growth is broadly based. Chart I-5A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? Chart I-6Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Still, current levels of equity market correlation and the VIX are unnerving given a plethora of potential geopolitical crises and the pending unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Moreover, any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Table I-1 shows the drop in the S&P 500 index during non-recession periods when the VIX surges by more than 10% in a 13-week period. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during the nine episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Table I-1Episodes When VIX Spiked November 2017 November 2017 The Equity Risk Premium Chart I-7Still Some Value In High-Yield Still Some Value In High-Yield Still Some Value In High-Yield On a positive note, the equity risk premium (ERP) is not overly depressed. There are many ways to define the ERP, but we present it as the 12-month forward earnings yield minus the 10-year Treasury yield in Chart I-4. It has fallen from about 760 basis points in 2011 to 310 basis points today. We do not believe that the ERP can return to the extremely low levels of 1990-2000. At best, the ERP may converge with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003-2007 (about 200 basis points). The current forward earnings yield is 550 basis points and the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4%. The ERP would need to fall by 110 basis points to get back to the 2% equilibrium. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or higher bond yield. If the 10-year yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3% (our base case), then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 50 basis points. This would boost the forward earnings multiple from 18 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We are not betting on any further multiple expansion but the point is that stocks at least have some padding in the event that bond yields adjust higher in a gradual way. It is the same story for speculative-grade bonds, which are not as expensive as they seem on the surface. The average index OAS is currently 326 bps, only about 100 bps above its all-time low. However, junk value appears much more attractive once the low default rate is taken into account. Chart I-7 presents the ex-post default-adjusted spreads, along with our forecast based on unchanged spreads and our projection for net default losses over the next year. The spread padding offered by the high-yield sector is actually reasonably good by historical standards, assuming there is no recession over the next year. We are not banking on much spread tightening from here, which means that high-yield is largely a carry trade now. Nonetheless, given a forecast for the default and recovery rate, we expect U.S. high-yield excess returns to be in the range of 2% and 5% (annualized) over the next 6-12 months. The bottom line is that the positive growth backdrop does not rule out a correction in risk assets, especially given rich valuations. But at least the profit, default and growth figures will remain a tailwind in the near term. The main risk is a breakout in inflation, which financial markets are not priced for. Inflation And Hidden Slack The September CPI report did little to buttress the FOMC's view that this year's inflation pullback is temporary. The report disappointed expectations again with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. The inflation debate continues to rage inside and outside the Fed as to whether the previous relationship between inflation and growth have permanently changed, whether low inflation simply reflects long lags, or whether it will require tighter labor markets in this business cycle to fuel wage and price pressures. We back the latter two of these three explanations but, admittedly, predicting exactly when inflation will pick up is extremely difficult and we must keep an open mind. A Special Report in the October IMF World Economic Outlook sheds some light on this vexing issue.3 Their work suggests that the deceleration in wage growth in the post-Lehman period in the OECD countries can largely be explained by traditional macro factors: weak productivity growth, lower inflation expectations and labor market slack. The disappointing productivity figures alone account for two-thirds of the drop in wage growth. However, a key point of the research is that the headline unemployment figures are not as good a measure of labor market slack as they once were. This is because declining unemployment rates partly reflect workers that have been forced into part-time jobs, referred to as involuntary part-time employment (IPT). The rise in IPT employment could be associated with automation, the growing importance of the service sector, and a diminished and more uncertain growth outlook that is keeping firms cautious. The IMF's statistical analysis suggests that the number of involuntary part-time workers as a share of total employment (IPT ratio) is an important measure of slack that adds information when explaining the decline in wage growth. Historically, each one percentage point rise in the IPT ratio trimmed wage growth by 0.3 percentage points. Chart I-8 and Chart I-9 compare the unemployment rate gap (unemployment rate less the full-employment estimate) with the deviation in the IPT ratio from its 2007 level. The fact that the IPT ratio has had an upward trend since 2000 in many countries makes it difficult to identify a level that is consistent with full employment. Nonetheless, the change in this ratio since 2007 provides a sense of how much "hidden slack" the Great Recession generated due to forced part-time employment. Chart I-8Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Chart I-9Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) For the OECD as a whole, labor market slack has been fully absorbed based on the unemployment gap. However, the IPT ratio was still elevated at the end of 2016 (latest data available), helping to explain why wage growth has remained so depressed across most countries. The IPT ratio is still above its 2007 level in three-quarters of the OECD countries. Of course, there is dispersion across countries. Japan has no labor market slack by either measure. In the U.S., the unemployment gap has fallen into negative territory, but only about half of the post-2007 rise in the IPT ratio has been unwound. For the Eurozone, the U.K. and Canada, the unemployment gap is close to zero (or well into negative territory in the U.K.). Nonetheless, little of the under-employment problem in these economies has been absorbed based on the IPT ratio. Our discussion in last month's report highlighted the importance of the global output gap in driving inflation in individual countries. Consistent with this, the IMF finds that there have been important spillover effects related to labor market slack, especially since 2007. This means that wage growth can be held down even in countries where slack has disappeared because of the existence of a surplus of available labor in their trading partners. Phillips Curve Is Not Dead That said, we still believe that the U.S. is at a point in the cycle when inflationary pressures should begin to build, even in the face of persisting labor market slack at the global level. Chart I-10 shows the ECI and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which are the best measures of wages because they are less affected by composition effects. Both have moved higher along with measures of labor market tightness. Wage and consumer price inflation have ebbed this year, but when we step back and look at it over a longer timeframe, the Phillips curve still appears to be broadly operating. Moreover, inflation is a lagging indicator. Table I-2 splits the post-war U.S. business cycles into short, medium, and long buckets based on the length of the expansion phase. It presents the number of months from when full employment was reached to the turning point for consumer price inflation in each expansion. There was a wide variation in this lag in the short- and medium-length expansions, but the lags were short on average. Chart I-10Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Table I-2Inflation Reacts With A Lag November 2017 November 2017 It is a different story for long expansions, where the lag averaged more than two years. We have pointed out in the past that it takes longer for inflation pressures to reveal themselves when the economy approaches full employment gradually, in contrast to shorter expansions when momentum is so strong the demand crashes into supply constraints. The fact that U.S. unemployment rate has only been below the estimate of full employment for eight months in this expansion suggests that perhaps we and the Fed are just being too impatient in waiting for the inflection point. Turning to Europe, the IPT ratio confirms the ECB's view that there is an abundance of under-employment, despite the relatively low unemployment rate. This suggests that the Eurozone remains behind the U.S. in the economic cycle. As expected, the ECB announced a tapering in its asset purchase program to take place next year. While policymakers are backing away from QE in the face of healthy growth and a shrinking pool of bonds to purchase, they will continue to emphasize that rate hikes are a long way off in order to avoid a surge in the euro and an associated tightening in financial conditions. U.S./Eurozone bond yield spreads are still quite wide by historical standards and thus it is popular to bet on spread narrowing and a stronger euro/weaker dollar. However, some narrowing in short-term rate spreads is already discounted based on the OIS forward curve (Chart I-11). The real 5-year, 5-year forward OIS spread - the market's expectation of how much higher U.S. real 5-year rates will be in five years' time relative to the euro area - stands at about 70 basis points. This spread is not wide by historical standards, and thus has room to widen again if market expectations for the fed funds rate moves up toward the Fed's 'dot plot' over the next 6-12 months. While market pricing for the ECB policy rate path appears about right in our view, market expectations for rate hikes in the U.S. are too complacent. This implies that long-term spreads could widen in favor of the U.S. dollar over the coming months, especially if U.S. growth accelerates while euro area growth cools off a bit. The fact the U.S. economic surprise index has turned positive is early evidence that this process may have already begun. Moreover, the starting point is that the dollar has been weaker than interest rate differentials warrant, such that there is some room for the dollar to 'catch up', even if interest rate differentials do not move (Chart I-12). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart I-11Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Chart I-12...Giving The Dollar A Lift ...Giving The Dollar A Lift ...Giving The Dollar A Lift A New Fed Chair? Our forecast for yield spreads and currencies is not overly affected by the choice of Fed Chair for next year. President Trump's meeting with academic John Taylor reportedly went well, but we think the President will prefer someone with a less hawkish bent. Keeping Chair Yellen is an option, but she has strong views on financial sector regulation that Trump does not like. The prevailing wisdom is that Jerome Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. In any event, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. As discussed above, uncertainty is elevated, but our base case sees inflation rising enough in the coming months for the Fed to maintain their 'dot plot' forecast. The market and the Fed are correct to 'look through' the near-term growth hit from the hurricanes, to the rebound that always follows the destruction. The U.S. housing sector is a little more worrying because some softness was evident even before the hurricanes hit. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing led the broader economic downturn by an average of seven quarters. Nonetheless, we continue to expect that the housing soft patch does not represent a peak for this cycle. Residential investment should provide fuel to the economy for at least the next two years as pent up demand is worked off, related to depressed household formation since the 2008 financial crisis. Affordability will still be favorable even if mortgage rates were to rise by another 100 basis points (Chart I-13). Robust sentiment in the homebuilder sector in October confirms that the hurricane setback in housing starts is temporary. China And Base Metals Turning to China, economic momentum is on the upswing. Real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at double-digit rates, albeit down from recent peak levels (Chart I-14). Various price indexes also reveal a fairly broadly-based inflation pickup to levels that will unnerve the authorities. Growth will likely slow in 2018 as policymakers continue to pare back stimulus. We do not foresee a substantial growth dip next year, but it could be hard on base metals prices. Chart I-13Housing Affordability Outlook Housing ##br##Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Housing Affordability Outlook Housing Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Housing Affordability Outlook Housing Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Chart I-14China: Healthy ##br##Growth Indicators China: Healthy Growth Indicators China: Healthy Growth Indicators Policy shifts discussed in Chinese President Xi's speech in October to the Party Congress are also negative for metals prices in the medium term. The speech provided a broad outline of goals to be followed by concrete policy initiatives at the National People's Congress (NPC) in March 2018. He emphasized that policy will tackle inequality, high debt levels, overcapacity and pollution. Globalization will also remain a priority of the government. The supply side reforms required to meet these goals will be positive in the long run, but negative for growth in the short run. Restructuring industry, deleveraging the financial sector and fighting smog will all have growth ramifications. The government could use fiscal stimulus to offset the short-term hit to growth. However, while overall growth may not slow much, the shift away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, will undermine the demand for base metals. Our commodity strategists also highlight the supply backdrop for most base metals is not supportive of an extended rally in prices. The implication is that investors who are long base metals should treat it as a trade rather than a strategic position. Despite our expectation that policy will continue to tighten, we believe that investors should overweight Chinese stocks relative to other EM markets. Investment Conclusions: Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of the easing in U.S. financial conditions that has taken place this year and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. The U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to reach President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. Surveys show that investors have all but given up on the prospect of tax cuts, which means that it will be a positive surprise if it finally arrives (as we expect). Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should favor Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments) in the major developed fixed-income markets. Our base-case outlook implies that it is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late-cycle phase. Calm macro readings and still-easy monetary policy have generated signs of froth. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Upside inflation surprises would destabilize the three-legged stool supporting risk assets, especially at a time when the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Black Monday is a reminder that major market pullbacks can occur even when the economic outlook is bright. Thus, investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons, and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 26, 2017 Next Report: November 20, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Black Monday, Thirty Years On: Revisiting The First Modern Global Financial Crisis," October 19, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Banks Hold The Key," October 24, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Recent Wage Dynamics In Advanced Economies: Drivers And Implications. Chapter 2, IMF World Economic Outlook. October 2017. II. Three Demographic Megatrends Dear Client, This month's Special Report is written by my colleague, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist. Peter highlights three key demographic trends that will shape financial markets in the coming decades. His non-consensus conclusions include the idea that demographic trends will be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul, in part because the trends are inflationary. Moreover, continuing social fragmentation will not be good for business. Mark McClellan Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Chart II-1Our Aging World Our Aging World Our Aging World Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart II-1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart II-2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart II-3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart II-4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. Chart II-2Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart II-3Climbing Those Stairs Is ##br##Getting More And More Difficult November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-4The Ratio Of Workers To ##br##Consumers Has Peaked The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Has Peaked The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Has Peaked The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart II-5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart II-5China On Course To Lose More ##br##Than 400 Million Workers China On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers China On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table II-1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart II-6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table II-1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Immigration Versus Income Distribution Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart II-7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-8Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States November 2017 November 2017 All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart II-9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation November 2017 November 2017 Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart II-11The Projected Expansion ##br##In Sub-Saharan Population The Projected Expansion In Sub-Saharan Population The Projected Expansion In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart II-11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart II-12). When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart II-13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart II-14). Chart II-12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-13The Erosion Of Trust In Media November 2017 November 2017 It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart II-15). Chart II-14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-15People Versus Companies November 2017 November 2017 The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart II-16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table II-2). Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart II-17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Chart II-16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? November 2017 November 2017 Table II-2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe November 2017 November 2017 Chart II-17Homicides And Inflation Homicides And Inflation Homicides And Inflation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy November 2017 November 2017 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firm to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rises, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rises, real rates will increase. At the margin, higher real rates will discourage investment and encourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity markets partied in October on solid earnings and economic growth figures, and the rising chances of a tax cut in the U.S. among other bullish developments. The Nikkei has been particularly strong in local currency terms following the re-election of Abe. Our equity indicators remain upbeat on the whole, although the rally is looking stretched by some measures. The BCA monetary indicator is hovering at a benign level. Implied equity volatility is very low, investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is elevated. These suggest that a lot of good news is already discounted. Our valuation indicator is also closing in on the threshold of overvaluation at one standard deviation. Our technical indicator is rolling over, although it needs to fall below the zero line to send a 'sell' signal. On a constructive note, the solid rise in earnings-per-share is likely to continue in the near term, based on positive earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio. Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in September for the third consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It 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 also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and European WTPs rose in October after a brief sideways move in previous months, suggesting that equity flows have turned more constructive. But the Japanese WTP is outshining the others. Given that the Japanese WTP is rising from a low level, it suggests that there is more 'dry powder' available to purchase Japanese stocks, especially relative to the U.S. market. We favor Japanese stocks relative to the other two markets in local currency terms, as highlighted in the Overview section. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar have now been absorbed based on our technical indicator, but there is plenty of upside for the currency before technical headwinds begin to bite. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys has moved above the zero line, but has not reached oversold territory. Bond valuation is close to fair value based on our long-standing valuation model. These factors suggest that yields have more upside potential before meeting resistance. Other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still about 20 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. 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 ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market ##br##And 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 Our out-of-consensus call on oil prices - Brent and WTI are expected to trade to $65 and $63/bbl, respectively, next year - has the most upside risk from unplanned production outages in Iraq and Venezuela. The potential for export losses from Libya, while not as acute, remains high. Downside price risks - e.g., a meaningful softening of demand, or sharply higher U.S. shale-oil production - are not as elevated as upside price risks, in our view. Favorable global macro conditions will continue to support the synchronized global upturn in GDP, keeping oil demand growth on track. The strained balance sheets of many U.S. shale-oil producers and deepwater-producing Majors likely will limit their ability to fund drilling, as recent earnings calls from oil-services companies attest.1 We continue to monitor global monetary conditions, particularly in the U.S. With global oil markets tightening as supply contracts and demand expands, the broad trade-weighted USD will become more of a factor in oil-price determination next year. Energy: Overweight. Our long $55/bbl WTI calls vs. short $60/bbl WTI call spreads in Jul/18 and Dec/18 recommended last week are up 9.3% and 5.8%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper has been well bid, and is up 8.5% since the beginning of the month. The proximate cause of the price strength is investor optimism regarding global growth, particularly in China. However, following their biannual meeting earlier this week, the International Copper Study Group kept its projected 2017 deficit unchanged, and downgraded their 2018 projection to 105k MT, from 170k MT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is under pressure as markets weigh the possibility President Trump will appoint a more hawkish Fed Chair to succeed Janet Yellen. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Following a backlash from Midwestern politicians, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) abandoned proposed changes to the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard. The EPA also will keep 2018 renewable fuel volume mandates at or above current proposed levels. Corn gained 2.4% since this announcement last week. Our corn-vs.-wheat spread is up 1.6% since inception. Feature Our out-of-consensus call on Brent and WTI prices for next year has a significant amount of daylight between the prices we expect - $65 and $63/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively - and price estimates we derive using the U.S. EIA's supply, demand and inventory expectations, which are $15.1 and $13.8/bbl lower (Chart of the week). Chart of the WeekPrices Derived Using BCA And EIA##BR##Global Balance Estimates Prices Derived Using BCA And EIA Global Balance Estimates Prices Derived Using BCA And EIA Global Balance Estimates Our bullish oil price call is predicated on stronger global demand growth than EIA and other forecasters' estimates (Chart 2 & Table 1), and an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to end-June 2018 (Chart 3).2 These fundamentals combine to sustain a supply deficit for the better part of 2018 (Chart 4), which results in stronger inventory draws in the OECD (Chart 5). Net, we expect OECD stocks to fall below their five-year average level by year-end 2018. Chart 2Stronger Global Demand Growth ... Stronger Global Demand Growth ... Stronger Global Demand Growth ... Chart 3...And Continued OPEC 2.0 Discipline... ...And Continued OPEC 2.0 Discipline... ...And Continued OPEC 2.0 Discipline... Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Chart 4...Produce A Supply Deficit For Most Of 2018... ...Produce A Supply Deficit For Most Of 2018... ...Produce A Supply Deficit For Most Of 2018... Chart 5...Leading To OECD Inventory Normalization ...Leading To OECD Inventory Normalization ...Leading To OECD Inventory Normalization Upside Price Risks Dominate In 2018 In assessing the "known unknown" risks to our call, those on the upside clearly dominate in 2018. Chief among these risks are unplanned production outages, which have been somewhat under control versus the past two years (Chart 6). Nonetheless, we believe the risk of unplanned outages within OPEC - in Iraq and Venezuela, in particular - are elevated. The potential for export losses from Libya, while not as acute, remains high (Chart 7). Chart 6Unplanned Outages Are Down ... Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Chart 7...But Key States Are At Risk ...But Key States Are At Risk ...But Key States Are At Risk The risk of unplanned outages is highest in Iraq, where production is running at ~ 4.5mm b/d in 3Q17 (Chart 7, panel 1). Exports on the Ceyhan pipeline from Iraq's northern Kurdish region through Turkey to the Mediterranean fell by more than half to as low as 225k b/d, following a non-binding independence referendum in Iraq's restive Kurdistan region at the end of September. This led to armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish forces.3 Independence for the semi-autonomous region was supported by more than 90% of Iraqi Kurds. However, the Iraqi government in Baghdad, along with its neighbors in Turkey and Iran, opposed the referendum, as did the U.S. This lack of support likely prompted the Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) offer to "freeze" the referendum this week, and to seek immediate cease-fire talks with Baghdad. Export flows from Kirkuk and the Kurdish region have been restored this week to ~ 300k b/d, or half of the volumes exported prior to the referendum, according to Bloomberg.4 Even with the offer to freeze the referendum - presumably, this means the semi-autonomous Kurdish government will abstain from pressing for independence if its offer is accepted and Baghdad agrees to negotiate an immediate cease-fire - this issue is far from settled. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy noted last month, the critical issue for the oil market remains sustained conflict between the Iraqi central government and the KRG. The question that cannot be answered yet is what "would (a conflict) do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production."5 A huge "known unknown" resides in Venezuela, where we have production running at ~ 1.96mm b/d in 3Q17, sharply down from 2.4mm b/d during 2011-2015. The state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, SA, or PDVSA, is struggling to amass enough cash to meet critical near-term international interest and debt payment obligations, and can no longer afford to buy the chemicals and equipment required to make the country's heavy oil suitable for refining. This lack of cash is causing oil quality from Venezuela to deteriorate, as more exports are showing up with high levels of water, salt or metals. This is raising the odds refiners from the U.S. to China could turn barrels away in the near future unless the situation is reversed.6 Indeed, Reuters reported Phillips 66, a U.S. refiner, cancelled "at least eight crude cargoes because of poor oil quality in the first half of the year and demanded discounts on other deliveries, according to ... PDVSA documents and employees from both firms. The cancelled shipments - amounting at 4.4 million barrels of oil - had a market value of nearly $200 million." Venezuela's financial condition has steadily worsened following the collapse of oil prices at the end of 2014. Production is at its lowest level in 30 years, and banks have stopped extending letters of credit, which are critical to trading in the international oil market, in the wake of U.S. sanctions ordered by President Trump, as Reuters notes. In addition, PDVSA has been denied access to storage facilities in St. Eustatius terminal, because it owes the owner of the facility, Texas-based NuStar Energy, some $26 million in fees.7 Markets will be watching closely to see if Venezuela performs on $2 billion in USD-denominated bond payments, one of which is due tomorrow, and the other due next week (November 2). Venezuela missed debt coupon payments of some $350mm earlier this month, and has a total outstanding obligation for this year of $3.4 billion.8 In all likelihood, Venezuela will once again turn to Russia for additional financial support, which has stepped in as a "lender of last resort" replacing China.9 Venezuela owes Russia some $17 billion. Of this, Rosneft Oil Co., a Russian oil company, has loaned PDVSA $6 billion.10 In Libya, where we have production at 910k b/d in 3Q17 (Chart 7, panel 3), the risk of unplanned production outages is not as acute as the risks in Iraq and Venezuela, but important nonetheless. As a failed and fractured state, Libya faces particular challenges in maintaining production. Wood Mackenzie believes Libyan production likely has plateaued. The oil consultancy believes Libya's max production is limited to 1.25 million b/d.11 However, "Reaching this would be quite an achievement, given ongoing challenges, including international oil companies' reluctance to recommit capital and expertise, a national oil company starved of funding - and, not least, the propensity for violence to flare up and armed groups to hinder oil output." Downside Price Risks Less Daunting In 2018 Chart 8The USD Will Become More Important##BR##As Oil Markets Tighten Next Year The USD Will Become More Important As Oil Markets Tighten Next Year The USD Will Become More Important As Oil Markets Tighten Next Year Downside price risks - e.g., a meaningful softening of demand, or sharply higher U.S. shale-oil production - are not as elevated as risks to the upside, in our view. The favorable global macro conditions we discussed in last week's forecast will continue to support the synchronized global upturn in GDP. This will keep global oil demand growing at ~ 1.67mm b/d on average in 2017 and 2018, based on our estimates. We expect U.S. shale production to increase to 5.17 mm b/d in 2017 and to 6.09 mm b/d next year, as higher prices incentivize renewed drilling activity. However, the strained balance sheets of many shale-oil producers and a renewed - although perhaps only temporary - push from equity investors for shale producers to focus on improving economic returns rather than merely pursuing maximal production growth, likely will limit their ability to fund drilling, as recent earnings calls from oil-services companies attest. Away from fundamentals, we are monitoring U.S. monetary policy closely, given the potential for the USD to become a headwind once again for commodity prices generally, and oil prices in particular. As we noted last week, we expect the tightening of oil markets globally to restore the linkage between the USD and oil prices - i.e., the inverse correlation between them (a stronger USD is bearish for crude oil prices, and vice versa). The transitory noise surrounding the next Fed Chair will dissipate within the next few weeks, allowing the U.S. central bank and markets to focus on the evolution of monetary policy next year, following a widely expected rate hike in December. During the transitional phase the oil market is currently passing through - falling supply and stout demand are tightening the market globally - the USD's importance will increase as a determinant of oil prices (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Our oil-price call for next year - $65/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI - is predicated on stronger global demand growth, and an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to end-June 2018. These fundamentals will produce stronger inventory draws in the OECD, and bring stocks below their five-year average by year-end 2018. In our view, upside price risks clearly dominate in 2018. Chief among these risks are unplanned production outages in key OPEC states - Iraq, Venezuela and Libya - which account for ~ 7.4mm b/d of production at present. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Oilfield Service Quarterly Update: U.S. Stagnation," published October 25, 2017. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Please see last week's feature article in Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," for a discussion of our assumptions, models and estimates. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Update 2 - Iraqi Kurdistan faces first major oil outage since referendum," published by uk.reuters.com October 18, 2017. See also "Iraq's NOC vows to maintain Kirkuk oil flows after ousting Kurds," published by S&P Global Platts October 17, 2017, for additional background. 4 Please see "Iraqi Kurds Offer To Freeze Independence Referendum Results," published October 25, 2017, by Bloomberg.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Iraq: An Emergent Risk," p. 23 in the September 20, 2017 issue. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "Venezuela's deteriorating oil quality riles major refiners," published by reuters.com October 18, 2017. 7 Please see "Exclusive: PDVSA blocked from using NuStar terminal over unpaid bills," published by uk.reuters.com October 20, 2017. 8 Please see "Venezuela is blowing debt payments ahead of a huge, make-or-break bill," published by cnbc.com on October 20, 2017. 9 Please see "Special Report: Vladimir's Venezuela - Leveraging loans to Caracas, Moscow snaps up oil assets," published by reuters.com on August 11, 2017. 10 Rosneft's majority owner is the Russian government. See "Glencore sells down stake in Russia's Rosneft," published by telegraph.co.uk on September 8, 2017. Glencore's 14.6% stake in Rosneft was sold to CEFC China Energy, according to the Telegraph. 11 Please see "WoodMac: Libya's oil production might have reached near-term potential," in the October 20, 2017, issue of Oil & Gas Journal. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Markets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Markets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations... Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 ...From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 ...From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level ECB Bond Buying: Watch The Pace, Not The Level ECB Bond Buying: Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? European Credit Spreads Set To Widen Post-ECB? European Credit Spreads Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

One of BCA's long-standing clients, Ms. Mea, recently paid us a visit at our Montreal office. Ms. Mea is an experienced and successful investor who has been reading different BCA products for many years. She noted that over the years she has both agreed and disagreed with our market views, but that she appreciates our thematic approach including themes, analysis and views, as they are important to her investment process. Like many of our clients, Ms. Mea has been disappointed by the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team's EM/China call, which has not been correct over the past 18 months. My team and I spent a few hours with Ms. Mea detailing our views and methodology. Despite some tough discussions, she said she found the dialogue valuable. Reflecting on our meeting, I thought it would be beneficial to share the key points with all of EMS clients. This report is a summary of that. Ms. Mea and I agreed to continue the debate as the story plays out, so I will be meeting with her occasionally in Europe when I travel there. Ms. Mea: Clearly your recommended strategy has been wrong for some time. I am aware that your negative view on EM/China and strategy was right and profitable from 2011 until early 2016. Nevertheless, since early last year EM risk assets have rallied considerably, and not participating in this rally has been painful - not to mention being short EM risk assets. For our global equity funds, underweighting EM within the global universe did not hurt performance in 2016. However, this year the EM equity benchmark has considerably outperformed the global averages (Chart I-1). So, what has gone wrong, and why haven't you changed your view already? Chart I-1EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices Answer: My objective today is not to dispute your comments - my view and investment strategy have clearly gone wrong. Rather, I would like to highlight what has gone wrong as well as elaborate on my methodology and thought process. Let me be clear, if I thought in 2016 or early 2017 that the market would rally for more than six months and - in the case of EM equities - by more than 20%, I would have recommended clients to play this rally regardless of my big picture themes and views. The same is true today. My general view has been based on two pillars: Chinese growth and Federal Reserve policy/the U.S. dollar. 1. The first pillar of my argument has been that China's growth improvement would prove unsustainable due to lingering credit imbalances/excesses. In the April 13, 2016 report,1 I laid out the case that China's 2015-16 fiscal stimulus of RMB 850 billion would be offset by a potential slowdown in credit growth from an annual growth rate of 11.5% to 9-9.5%. Chart I-2China: Borrowing Costs Have Been Rising China: Borrowing Costs Have Rising China: Borrowing Costs Have Rising This thesis of credit growth deceleration was based on the natural tendency of credit growth to gravitate toward nominal GDP growth, especially since the credit-to-GDP ratio had massively overshot in the preceding seven years. Besides, since 2013 high-profile policymakers in China had been talking about the need for deleveraging, containing financial excesses, and not repeating the mistakes of 2009-2010, when money and credit was allowed to run at an extremely strong pace. In first half of 2016, I downplayed the recovery in money and credit aggregates arguing that they are temporary and unsustainable. When a country has a lingering credit bubble - which has been the case in China, I am biased to downplay upticks in money and credit growth and easing in monetary policy. At the same time, I put a greater emphasis on both monetary tightening and slowdown in money/credit when the economy suffers from credit excesses. The opposite is also true in cases where there are no excesses/imbalances. Since November 2016, the People Bank of China (PBoC) has been tightening liquidity and pushing money market rates and corporate bond yields higher (Chart I-2). This has been taking place in addition to regulatory tightening on both bank and shadow banking activities. As a result, I have been predicting that regulatory and liquidity tightening amid lingering credit and speculative excesses would weigh on money, credit and capital spending. Importantly, I reckoned that financial markets would be forward-looking and would reverse their rally in anticipation of weaker growth down the road instead of reacting to robust - yet backward looking - growth data. Indeed, money and credit growth have already slowed to all-time lows (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, broad economic growth has not slowed (Chart I-4). This has also been true for China's impact on the rest of the world - the mainland's imports have remained robust (Chart I-5). Chart I-3China: Money And Credit Aggregates China: Money And Credit Aggregates China: Money And Credit Aggregates Chart I-4China: Business Cycle Perspective China: Business Cycle Perspective China: Business Cycle Perspective Chart I-5China: Money Impulses And Imports China: Money Impulses And Imports China: Money Impulses And Imports Not only have I been surprised by the mainland economy's ability to withstand the slowdown in money/credit so far, but I have also been caught off guard by how financial markets have shrugged off the rise in onshore interest rates and the deceleration in money/credit. That said, liquidity tightening works with a time lag. The fact that it has not yet had an impact on the real economy does not mean it won't going forward. 2. The second pillar of my view has been that the Fed's dovish stance would prove transitory. The global market rally began in February 2016 when the Fed sounded dovish in the face of a surging U.S. dollar, collapsing commodities prices, very weak global trade and plunging global risk assets. Remarkably, global growth and corporate profits have recovered very strongly, the U.S. dollar has weakened considerably and commodities and global tradable goods prices have rebounded. As such, I expected that U.S. interest rate expectations would move higher, dampening the carry trade. Unfortunately, markets' reactionary functions does not always follow a symmetrical logic. The decline in U.S. inflation rate amid a weak dollar, rising import prices and robust U.S. growth - especially the tight labor market and some wages pressures (Chart I-6) - has puzzled me. Ms. Mea: Why have you disregarded the clear improvements in EM profits and global trade in 2017? Answer: I have been aware of improving economic data and corporate profits. Yet, these types of data are backward looking and are not a guarantee of future trends. Even though the released economic data and corporate profits have been strong, our forward-looking indicators for both EM and China have been heralding and continue to point to a major downtrend in EM profits (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Chart I-7EM Profits Are At Risk EM Profits Are At Risk EM Profits Are At Risk Importantly, I presume stock prices lead profits. Hence, it is dangerous to turn bullish when forward-looking indicators that lead profits are already flashing red. These are empirical indicators and have a great track record. As such, I have placed substantial weight on them rather than on backward-looking economic and profit data. Since early 2017, I have been facing the following dilemma: Should I change my view based on strong, yet backward-looking, profit data, or remain cautious based on forward-looking growth indicators as well as our big-picture themes. I chose the latter, which in retrospect was wrong. Looking back, the biggest mistake I made was putting little weight on how markets have been trading. EM and global stocks continue to trade as they would in a genuine bull market: they have looked past negative news and rallied a lot in response to positives. Ms. Mea: You mentioned big-picture themes. Can you elaborate on your framework and methodology? Answer: At the core of my analytical framework lies investment themes. I formulate these themes based on a series of in-depth research reports. These themes have multi-year relevance - I expect them to have staying power beyond one year. These themes represent an anchor to my view and strategy. Without anchor themes, I would tend to change my views back and forth based on fluctuations in economic data or swings in financial markets. Having established themes, my team and I monitor cyclical data, market dynamics/signposts and any type of evidence to prove or refute those established themes. Clients have recently been asking why I only show charts/evidence that confirm my view, and rarely entertain the alternative scenario. Indeed, there are always contradictory signals, signposts and data that I identify every week. Yet, I still choose to show those that support my ongoing themes and views. Why? Because I opt to convey a well-argued coherent message to my clients. In this context, I use the limited client-time allocated to reading our reports to highlight the reasons supporting my current themes and high-conviction views. It would also be unhelpful for readers if I demonstrate several charts that herald a bullish stance, and then conclude the opposite. If I were to utilize the alternative approach, i.e., present data and evidence on both sides of the debate, the report would be ambiguous. As a result, readers would gain little conviction and would likely be left confused. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages: when the view plays out, investors see the correct angle and, thereby, develop a strong conviction on the strategy, and hopefully act upon it. Conversely, when the view goes wrong, investors typically wish they had seen the opposite side as well. Chart I-8China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far In short, my goal is to leave clients with a clear and well-argued message when I have high conviction. As to conviction level, like all investors, I am dealing with a black box when gauging the outlook for financial markets. I am never 100% certain; I make investment recommendations only when my conviction level is somewhere around 65-75%. Generally, I do not discuss the areas where my conviction level is less than 60%. Less than 60% means "I do not know". An example of this is whether the current tech rally will persist. Importantly, I try to bring to clients' attention data and evidence that they may not be aware of and analytical points that differ from commonly known market narratives. Investors are aware of overall global financial market dynamics and ongoing narratives. My goal is to add value to their knowledge with the framework of thematic investment research, and to highlight new and potentially market moving charts, data and evidence. My major theme on China in the past several years has been the following: Chinese banks have originated too much money, and the corporate sector has taken on a large amount of leverage. This, in tandem with speculative excesses in the shadow banking and property markets, pose considerable downside risks to capital spending growth in the mainland. This is especially the case given that both liquidity and regulatory tightening of banks and non-banks already begun in late 2016. While financial markets, economic data and corporate profits have gone against this theme, this does not mean credit/money excesses in China have disappeared or do not exist. On the contrary, they have gotten even bigger now (Chart I-8, top panel). The Chinese economy has recovered and benefited commodities prices and the rest of EM due to another round of substantial money/credit injection. Broad money and broad credit have surged by about RMB 45-50 trillion since the middle of 2015 - depending on which measure one uses (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In the context of mushrooming leverage, ongoing policy tightening entails a poor risk-reward profile for bullish bets on mainland growth. This is why I am reluctant to abandon this theme and the bearish view. Ms. Mea: What would it take to change your big picture theme on China? To fundamentally reverse my view on China and commodities on a multi-year time line, I would need to reject my theme that China has meaningful credit excesses and imbalances, or buy into the view that these imbalances are a natural outcome of China's excess savings and will never correct. I have strong conviction in my big picture theme and I have not seen convincing arguments to change it. That said, if I come to the conclusion that EM risk assets and China-related plays will rally for six months or longer, I will change the investment strategy and recommend playing that rally. In this case my market strategy will change even though the big picture theme remains intact. As to the relationship between national and household savings, credit, and money, I have elaborated at great length that money creation and credit excesses do not originate from excess savings.2 Hence, it is simply not natural for a country with excess savings to experience and sustain credit bubbles. Importantly, adjustments in terms of credit excesses/deleveraging in China have not even started (Chart 8, top panel). This does not imply that investors should wait until deleveraging ends before turning positive on mainland growth. Markets are forward looking and will bottom when they see the light at the end of tunnel. But it is very dangerous to be positive when the adjustment has not yet began. It appears China's capital spending in general and construction in particular - the most vulnerable and credit-dependent segments - have in recent years been fluctuating in mini-cycles, similar to what played out in Japan during the 1990s and 2000s. I am not suggesting that China resembles Japan entirely, but comparing their mini cycles is a worthwhile exercise. Chart I-9 shows that the Japanese economy, money, credit and share prices were on a rollercoaster ride in the 1990s and 2000s. Notably, the profile of Chinese H shares fits the profile of Japan's stock market during that period (Chart I-10). On average, the recovery phase of these mini-cycles/equity rallies lasted about 20-24 months. Chart I-9Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Chart I-10Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s My judgment is that the recovery in the Chinese economy and related financial markets over the past 18 months resembles the mini cycles Japan experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. If so, after the rally in the past 18 months, forward-looking investment strategy should be focused on identifying signposts of a reversal. Consistently, given my bias stemming from our core themes and the fact that financial markets are forward looking and have already rallied a lot, I have been looking for signs of a top in China's business cycle and Asia's trade flows. It is pointless for me to change the view if my bias is that markets will reverse their trend in the next couple of months. Investors who are bullish and long but are somewhat concerned about China's growth sustainability still may want to monitor and be aware when the business cycle and markets will reverse. This is where I believe our research is helpful and relevant to investors with a bullish bias. It is hard to forecast what would be an inflection point to overturn the current financial market trend. It could be an unambiguous message from China's Communist Party Congress in the coming days that containing financial risks - a code word for deleveraging - is a major policy priority, or it could be weak economic data in China, or lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies, being the flipside of a stronger dollar. Chart I-11China: Beware Of Rising Inflation China: Beware Of Rising Inflation China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Ms. Mea: It seems there is no silver lining in your view. Does this mean Chinese policymakers cannot do much to generate a positive outcome for the economy and financial markets? Answer: Chinese policymakers are in a very tough position. Yet it does not mean there is no silver lining. I assign a 20-25% probability that policymakers can stabilize leverage in the economy and financial system without a meaningful growth slump. If this scenario transpires, my negative view on EM and China-related plays will continue to be wrong. There is a 40-45% probability that growth will slump as the authorities focus on deleveraging and structural reforms (allowing markets to play a greater role in resource/capital allocation), and that policy tightening will begin biting. This heralds a deflationary outcome from a cyclical perspective, but it also represents a necessary adjustment to ensure efficiency gains and productivity-led growth over the long run. In fact, this would make me structurally bullish on China's growth again. There is also a 30-35% probability that policymakers - having no tolerance for any kind of growth slump - will continue to stimulate via money/credit and fiscal deficits. The outcome of this scenario will be an inflation outbreak Notably, as I argued in the October 4th 2017 report,3 underlying inflationary pressures are rising, as shown in Chart I-11. Unless growth decelerates meaningfully, inflation will need to be tackled. If not, capital outflows from residents will escalate again, and the currency will come under depreciation pressure given that the deposit rate is at a very low 1.5%. Rising inflation limits policymakers' maneuvering room: they have to tighten and cannot stimulate rapidly and considerably when growth slows. In short, a silver-lining scenario - which would include the authorities curbing out excesses while preserving overall growth, and especially capital spending growth - is always there and is a well-known narrative in the investment community. I do not write about it because I assign a 20-25% probability of it actually panning out. Why not more? Because the imbalances and excesses are currently so large that it will be difficult to contain them without jeopardizing growth. Finally, my view on China does not spread to the entire economy - our focal point has been and remains capital expenditures in general and construction in particular. These areas are being financed by credit, and consume a lot of raw materials and capital goods. Mainland imports - which are heavy in commodities and capital goods (the two account for 95% of total imports) - are the link between mainland investment expenditures and the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. The latter will suffer if Chinese imports contract. Ms. Mea: It seems your big-picture themes have considerable influence on your views and strategy. How have your big-picture investment themes evolved over time? Last decade, my overreaching theme was that EM and China were structurally sound and that EM/China/commodities were in a bull market. So, I went from being a staunch bull to a resolute bear. I took over the EMS strategy service in 2005, and was bullish on EM, China and commodities up until 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). In 2005, I published an in-depth report arguing that commodities were in secular bull market due to demand from China.4 In April 2006, I pioneered a new theme that in the case of a U.S./DM recession, EM could stimulate and boost domestic demand - an out-of-consensus thesis5 at the time. Having these themes in mind, I recommended upgrading/accumulating Chinese stocks amid the Lehman crisis in the fall of 2008.6 The message was that Chinese policymakers could and would stimulate, and that such stimulus would succeed in lifting Chinese growth, corporate profits, commodities prices and EM risk assets. That was a non-consensus trade at the time, and the exact opposite of my current view. Following the credit boom in EM/China in 2009-10, excesses and imbalances emerged, and I shifted to a negative stance on EM/China in 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). Furthermore, in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled, 'How to Play EM This Decade,' I made a call on a major top and forthcoming bear market in commodities arguing that the 2010-decade leaders in terms of growth and share price performance would be the healthcare and technology sectors. I speculated that during the current decade mania will unfold either in the technology or heath care sectors or some combination of both. Since 2010, the technology and healthcare equity sectors have been the best equity sectors, while commodities have been the worst performing ones within both the global and EM equity space. Consistent with this theme, I have been overweighing EM technology stocks and bourses where tech has a large weight, such as Taiwan, China and Korea. Besides, since 2010 I have maintained a pair strategy recommendation of being long tech and short materials. Ms. Mea: It seems you have been changing the goalposts lately, using new data on Chinese money and credit instead of relying on traditional ones. Our research is an ongoing effort to understand the macro landscape better. Our objective is always to find new variables and indicators that better lead business cycles and corporate profits while continuing to track the existing ones. Thus, it is not about changing goalposts but refining existing indicators or examining alternative ones that have a better track record. The following aspects have led usintroduce new broad money measures in China: Over the past two years, official M2 has been much weaker than various credit and money measures, as illustrated in the top panel of Chart I-8 on page 8. Broad money, and hence new purchasing power, is created when banks originate credit - by lending to or buying claims on non-bank entities. Therefore, properly measuring broad money is vital to assessing the new purchasing power that is created in the economy. In brief, in 2016 and early this year I relied on China's official broad money M2 measure, but it has underestimated the amount of new purchasing power created in the past two years. This was one of the reasons we misjudged the duration and magnitude of this equity rally. In addition, the regulatory clampdown on banks and non-banks may have prompted them to shift credit assets from off balance sheet to on balance sheet, or vice versa. Banks and shadow bank entities can obscure or hide credit by classifying it differently, but the banking system cannot conceal the amount of money in the system. Therefore, by tracing broad money creation, one can trail new purchasing power originated by banks. For these reasons, we have begun calculating new broad money aggregates for China - we produced our measure of M3 (M2 plus some other banks liabilities that are not included in M2) and credit-money (broad money calculated using the asset side of commercial banks' balance sheets). Chart I-3 on page 3 illustrates that all measures of money and credit have slowed in late 2016 and this year. On balance, having examined various measures of money and credit, including official M2, we have concluded that in the past 12 months money/credit creation has been slowing in China, irrespective of which aggregate we focus on (please refer to Chart I-3 on page 3). Ms. Mea: How do you explain strong September money and credit numbers out of China? Money, credit and business activity data for September were indeed strong, but they should be adjusted for working days. In China, the annual Mid-Autumn Festival fell in October this year versus September over the past several years. During this festival, business activity grinds to a halt for several days. I conjecture that money, credit and growth data out of China and Asia in general was strong in September partially due to the increase in the number of business days in September this year versus September a year ago. We need to wait for October data and average the two months to get a better picture of the trajectory of the business cycle in Asia. Chart I-12China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining Ms. Mea: Your view on China, commodities and EM is largely contingent on very weak money growth. Is it possible that the correlation between money and economic growth has diminished or completely broken down in China? The only reason why broad money growth could deviate from nominal GDP growth is due to the rising velocity of money. Let's remind ourselves: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money. For nominal GDP growth to rise, a considerable decelaration in money supply growth needs to be offset by an even larger acceleration in the velocity of money. It is extremely difficult to forecast velocity of money. I assume money velocity will be steady (constant) and, consequently, nominal GDP growth to be affected primarily by changes in broad money growth. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the velocity of money in China has been declining over the past eight years. So, it would be odd for the velocity of money to suddenly rise going forward, in turn making money growth a less reliable indicator for nominal GDP growth. Overall, while it is always possible that the correlation between money growth and economic activity can break down, it is not something that one can forecast or bet on with high conviction. Chart I-13EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak Ms. Mea: What about other emerging markets? How dependent are they on China? Where are they in the business cycle? The link from China to other emerging markets is via commodities and EM countries' other exports to the mainland. Even non-commodity countries like Korea and Taiwan sell a lot to China. If Chinese growth decelerates, commodities prices relapse, the U.S. dollar rallies or the RMB comes under selling pressure, the outlook for other EM countries and their risk assets will be dim. I argued that EM currencies, credit, and stocks on aggregate levels are not cheap.7 Segments that appear attractively valued are cheap for a reason, while healthy segments (countries/sectors/companies) are rather expensive. Money and bank loan growth also remain lackluster in the majority of EM, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). The reason is that the banking systems in many of these developing countries have not been restructured and remain sick following years of overextended credit and rising non-performing loans. Therefore, even though EM exports to China and the rest of the world have picked up, there has been little recovery in their domestic demand. If external conditions - exports, exchange rates and borrowing costs - deteriorate anew, EM domestic demand recovery will be derailed. Investors often refer to Russia and Brazil when they cite macro adjustments in developing economies. It is true that Russia and Brazil have already gone through a lot of pain and adjustment, including provisioning for NPLs in their respective banking systems. Nevertheless, financial markets in both countries remain dependent on commodities prices and the U.S. dollar outlook. Barring external shocks, both economies will continue to revive. That said, my big-picture view entails a negative shock to EM sentiment due to China and a rally in the greenback so I cannot turn bullish on them yet. In addition, Brazil's public debt is rising in an unsustailable manner, and political risks remain significant, particularly ahead of next year's elections. It will be hard to boost nominal growth and contain the explosion of public debt without meaningful currency depreciation that reflates the economy. That cannot not bode well for foreign investors in Brazilian markets. Credit excesses continue to linger in some other EM economies, and there has been little adjustments in their leverage even when we remove China, Korea and Taiwan from the aggregate (Chart I-14). All in all, while some EM economies have undergone necessary macro adjustments, the largest economy - China - has not. When China begins its own macro adjustments, shockwaves will likely hit Asian economies and commodities producers. There are not many large developing countries outside Asia that are not raw materials exporters. Ms. Mea: What about the technology sector? It alone has been responsible for a substantial portion of price gains in the EM equity benchmark in this rally. Does your view on China's credit cycle also influence your outlook for technology stocks? Indeed, EM tech stocks have exploded in recent years, accounting for a significant portion of EM share price appreciation. Excluding tech stocks, EM equities have not rallied nearly as much (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Leverage Has Not Diminished EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Leverage Has Not Diminished EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Leverage Has Not Diminished Chart I-15EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech Also, Table I-1 reveals that eight out of 11 equity sectors have underperformed the benchmark. Meanwhile, a large share of tech gains has been produced by five or so companies. Table I-1EM Sectors: Only Three Out Of 11 Sectors ##br##Outperformed The Benchmark Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View I have no strong view on the technology sector's absolute performance following the exponential price gains of past years. Overweighting the technology sector has been my recommendation since 2010, as we discussed above, and it has panned out quite well. I still maintain this overweight call, but within the technology sector we prefer semis to internet and social-media stocks. On the second part of your question, my negative view on China's credit cycle does not have direct ramifications for technology stocks, including Chinese ones. Critically, the call on internet- and social media-related companies is a bottom-up call. On the macro level, I can only state the following: It is essential to realize that in the past nine years a lot of new purchasing power in China has been created because of explosive money origination by banks. If money/credit growth structurally downshifts in China in the years ahead, nominal income growth for both households and companies will slow and the growth in their spending power will also moderate. That said, I am not in a position to assess and comment on business model viability and equity valuation levels of internet and social media-related companies like Alibaba, Tencent or Baidu. As to the other two tech heavyweights - Samsung Electronics and TSMC - I continue to recommend an overweight position in semis and other tech stocks that stand to benefit from DM growth. However, I am less certain about their absolute performance given their exponential rally. Chart I-16EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio ##br##Performance Versus The Benchmark EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio Performance Versus The Benchmark EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio Performance Versus The Benchmark Finally, regardless of my view on EM absolute performance, we always add value to dedicated EM equity and fixed-income investors by selecting countries to overweight and underweight relative to their respective benchmarks. Our country equity allocation strategy has been very successful. Chart I-16 illustrates our country fully-invested equity portfolio performance versus the EM benchmark. The portfolio is built based on our overweight and underweight recommendations on individual bourses, and is assumed to be fully invested. Our country calls have done quite well in the past nine years, producing 58% outperformance versus the benchmark with extremely low volatility. This translates into 520 basis points of annual compound outperformance for nine years. Our recommended country allocation and other equity positions as well as fixed income and currency recommendations are published at the end of each week's report. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, " China: Deflation Or Inflation?," dated October 4, 2017; link available on page 21. 4 Please refer to the International Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled, "Commodities: Buy On Dips," dated April 2005. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Global Monetary Tightening And Emerging Markets: Is It Different This Time?"dated April 19, 2006. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Upgrade/Accumulate Chinese Stocks,"dated September 29, 2008. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The uptick in world oil demand in the wake of a strengthening global upturn - the first since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) - coupled with continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0, will accelerate inventory draws, and lift prices above our previous expectation. Even though we expect - and model for - U.S. shale producers to step up drilling as a result, we are lifting our base case forecast for 2018 Brent and WTI to $65.15/bbl and $62.95/bbl, respectively. These estimates are up $5.51 and $5.98/bbl from our forecast last month.1 Energy: Overweight. Given our view (discussed below), we are taking profits on the long Dec/17 WTI call spread we recommended June 15 - long $50/bbl calls vs. short $55/bbl calls - on the close tonight. This position was up 116% Tuesday. We will replace this spread with long $55/bbl WTI calls vs. short $60/bbl WTI calls in Jul/18 and Dec/18. Base Metals: Neutral. We closed our short Dec 2016 copper trade last week, after our trailing-stop of $3.10/lb was elected, with a 0.75% return. Our trade was up 6% by the end of September, however bullish data in October - including an earthquake in Chile and worries over a potential metal shortage in China - lifted prices back up. Chinese copper import data showed a 26.5% year-on-year (yoy) jump in September. Even so, we expect copper imports to end 2017 with a yoy decline. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium continues to trade premium to platinum following its breakout at the end of September. We expect this to continue, given the supply-demand fundamentals we highlighted in June.2 Ags/Softs: Neutral. The USDA's latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) is supportive of our grains view - projections for 2017/18 wheat ending inventories were revised upward, while corn and soybeans stock estimates were lowered. Our long corn vs. short wheat position recommended October 5 is up 1.5% (please see p. 8 for further discussion.) Feature The global uptick in GDP growth noted this month by the IMF, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will lift 2018 average Brent and WTI prices to $65.15/bbl and $62.95/bbl, respectively. These estimates are up $5.51 and $5.98/bbl from our forecast last month (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekHigher Demand, Lower Supply,##BR##Tighter Inventories Lift Prices Higher Demand, Lower Supply, Tighter Inventories Lift Prices Higher Demand, Lower Supply, Tighter Inventories Lift Prices We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals - for oil producers, that is - to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices (Chart 2). This, in turn, will set off a new round of U.S. shale-oil production, which will temper the price rise we expect, but still force inventories to draw harder than expected (Chart 3). Our base case calls for OPEC 2.0 to extend its 1.8mm b/d production cutting deal to end-June 2018, and for compliance within the KSA-Russia-led coalition to remain strong. OPEC 2.0 member states compliance with self-imposed quotas stood at 106% of agreed cuts, according to a state-by-state tally published by S&P's Global Platts earlier this month.3 Iraq continues to flaunt its OPEC 2.0 production quota, at 4.54mm b/d by our estimate, or 153k b/d over its quota. OPEC as a whole is producing 32.74mm b/d of crude oil, by our reckoning, vs. Platts' estimate of 32.66mm b/d. We have Libya and Nigeria, which are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 Agreement, producing 930k b/d and 1.71mm b/d last month, vs. Platts' estimates of 910k b/d and 1.84mm b/d, respectively (Table 1). KSA and Russia continue to lead OPEC 2.0 by example, with the former's crude oil production coming in at 9.97mm b/d in September, vs. 9.95mm b/d in August; the latter's total liquids production was 11.12mm b/d, vs. 11.13mm in August (Chart 4). Chart 2Market Will Get##BR##Tighter Sooner Market Will Get Tighter Sooner Market Will Get Tighter Sooner Chart 3BCA Expects Sharper##BR##Inventory Draw Than EIA BCA Expects Sharper Inventory Draw Than EIA BCA Expects Sharper Inventory Draw Than EIA Chart 4KSA And Russia Continue##BR##Providing Leadership To OPEC 2.0 KSA And Russia Continue Providing Leadership To OPEC 2.0 KSA And Russia Continue Providing Leadership To OPEC 2.0 Global GDP, Oil Demand Growth Strengthens The IMF earlier this month raised its forecast for global GDP growth this year to 3.6% and to 3.7% for next year, up 0.1% for each year vs. previous forecasts. In its analysis, the Fund drew attention to: Notable pickups in investment, trade, and industrial production, coupled with strengthening business and consumer confidence, are supporting the recovery. With growth outcomes in the first half of 2017 generally stronger than expected, upward revisions to growth are broad based, including for the euro area, Japan, China, emerging Europe, and Russia. These more than offset downward revisions for the United States, the United Kingdom, and India.4 On the back of the IMF's revised global growth estimates, we lifted our 2017 and 2018 oil demand expectation to just under 47.5mm b/d on average for the OECD and to just under 52mm b/d for non-OECD economies (Table 1). This translates into global demand growth of 1.65mm b/d in 2017 and 1.69mm b/d in 2018. Notably, we expect global demand to exceed 100mm b/d on average next year in our base case. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Our estimated demand is driven by global growth projections, particularly for EM economies, which make up the bulk of demand and growth in our balances estimates (Table 1). And, as before, our estimates remain above the EIA's (Chart 5). The indicators we look at to confirm or refute our demand assessment - global trade, particularly EM imports, and manufacturing - remain strong. Global trade continues to expand, particularly in EM ex-Middle East and Africa, as does manufacturing globally, both of which supports the IMF's assessment of growth generally (Charts 6 and 7). Rising incomes lead to rising trade, and also to increased oil and base metals consumption in EM economies. Chart 5We Continue To##BR##Estimate Higher Demand Than The EIA We Continue To Estimate Higher Demand Than The EIA We Continue To Estimate Higher Demand Than The EIA Chart 6Rising Trade Volumes##BR##Support Growth Story ... Rising Trade Volumes Support Growth Story ... Rising Trade Volumes Support Growth Story ... Chart 7... Expanding Manufacturing##BR##Does, Too .. Expanding Manufacturing Does, Too .. Expanding Manufacturing Does, Too Higher Prices, Greater USD Risk Expected In 2018 Given the upward revisions to global growth and our expectation OPEC 2.0 compliance will remain fairly stout, our baseline forecast now calls for WTI prices to average $56.40/bbl in 4Q17 and $62.95/bbl in 2018. Brent is expected to average $58.40/bbl in 4Q17 and $65.15/bbl next year (Chart 1 and Table 2). These estimates are up from last month's averages of $54.89 and $57.44/bbl for 4Q17 and 2018 WTI, and $56.67 and $59.17/bbl for 4Q17 and 2018 Brent.5 Our increasing bullishness is tempered by the risk of a stronger USD, particularly the broad trade-weighted USD index, which captures EM currency weakness. With the Fed set on a course to lift rates - our House view anticipates a Dec/17 rate hike and two or three hikes next year - and the oil market getting fundamentally tighter, we have seen the oil-USD linkage being re-established recently (Chart 8). Table 2Upgrading Our##BR##Price Forecasts Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Chart 8Expect The USD To Be Less##BR##Determinant For Oil Prices Expect The USD To Be Less Determinant For Oil Prices Expect The USD To Be Less Determinant For Oil Prices The persistent negative correlation between oil prices and the USD broke down following the global asset sell-off in 1Q16. However, this relationship converged to its long-term equilibrium in recent months. In our view, this reflects market participants' increasing conviction - expressed in market-cleared prices - that OPEC 2.0 will maintain its supply-management accord for an extended period, and that supply is now stabilizing. With demand remaining robust as the global synchronized upturn continues, the fundamental side of price determination has stabilized, and financial variables once again will strongly influence oil prices at the margin. Given our view the USD will trade off interest-rate differentials going forward, and our expectation that U.S. rates are set to increase relative to other systemically important rates, the USD likely will appreciate over the next 12 months. This will be a headwind for oil prices, and may be an additional factor OPEC 2.0 member states have to account for in 2018. Bottom Line: We are raising our price forecast for 4Q17 and 2018 in line with our expectation for stronger global growth and continued strong compliance from OPEC 2.0. With markets getting tighter, we expect the USD to become more important to the evolution of oil prices in 2018. Ag Update: Stay Long Corn, Short Wheat Global grain fundamentals continue to be supportive to our long corn vs. short wheat position, recommended October 5. The USDA's latest WASDE are projecting higher 2017/18 ending wheat inventories, while corn and soybeans stock estimates were lowered (Chart 9).6 Chart 9Fundamentals Support Long Corn##BR##Vs. Short Wheat Trade Fundamentals Support Long Corn Vs. Short Wheat Trade Fundamentals Support Long Corn Vs. Short Wheat Trade The USDA lowered its expected global corn stocks-to-use ratio, and increased its wheat stocks-to-use ratio for the current crop year. Revisions to the estimates for the 2016/17 crop year also reflect similar dynamics. We expected this going into the WASDE report at the beginning of the month when we published our Special Report on the Ag markets, and got long corn vs. short wheat. December 2017 corn futures traded on CME are up 0.14% since October 5, while wheat futures are down 1.36%. This brings the return on our long corn/short wheat trade to 1.5%, to date. Highlights from the current WASDE include: Upward revisions to wheat production from India, the EU, Russia, Australia, and Canada more than offset greater projected global demand, most notably from India and the EU. Overall, global ending stocks were revised up by 4.99mm MT, and are projected to stand at 268mm MT by the end of the 2017/18 marketing year. Greater projected corn demand, most notably from the U.S. and China, more than offset the ~ 6mm MT upward revision to global production in the USDA's estimates. Higher projected Chinese demand reflects greater food and seed demand, and higher expected industrial use. Corn stocks are expected to end 2017/18 at 200.96mm MT - 1.51mm MT below September projections. Similarly, in its October Chinese Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, China's Agriculture Ministry increased its forecast for the 2017/18 corn deficit to 4.31mm MT from 0.89mm MT projected last month. The Ministry expects lower output and greater consumption on the back of stronger demand from ethanol plants.7 Furthermore, in a move towards market pricing, Heilongjiang - China's top corn province - will be reducing the subsidy it gives corn farmers from 153.92 yuan/mu last year to 133.46 yuan/mu. The province will reorient its subsidies to incentivize more soybean production.8 In soybean markets, USDA projections for ending stocks were reduced by 1.48mm MT to 96.05mm MT by end-2017/18, largely on the back of lower expected U.S. and Brazilian inventories in 2016/17. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Will Extend Cuts To June 2018," published September 21, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Precious Metals Update," in the June 29, 2017 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals". It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see S&P Global Platts OPEC Guide published October 6, 2017. 4 Please see Chapter 1 of the IMF's World Economic Outlook for October 2017, which is available online at https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/09/19/world-economic-outlook-october-2017. 5 Our base case continues to call for an end-June 2018 extension of the OPEC 2.0 production deal. Should the deal be extended to end-December 2018, we estimate 2018 WTI prices would average $67.35/bbl, while Brent prices would average just under $70.00/bbl. We are becoming increasingly confident OPEC 2.0 will become a durable production-management coalition, given the increasing cooperation and mutual investment between KSA and Russia. We will be exploring this further in future research. Please see "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," published October 11, 2017, by BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled "Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral," dated October 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "China Raises Forecast For 2017/18 Corn Deficit On Lower Output," dated October 12, 2017, available at reuters.com. 8 Please see "Top China Corn Province Cuts Subsidy For Farmers Growing the Grain," dated October 16, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Looking into 2018, the major risk factors driving gold - inflation and inflation expectations; fiscal and monetary policy; and geopolitics - will, on balance, continue to favor gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. We expect gold will provide a good hedge against rising inflation. However, this will be partially mitigated by Fed rate hikes next year. On the back of tighter U.S. monetary policy, our macroeconomists expect a recession by 2H19, possibly earlier in 2019, which likely would be sniffed out by equity markets as early as 2H18. Our analysis indicates gold will provide a good hedge against this expected recession and the associated equity bear market.1 Lastly, geopolitical risks from (1) U.S.-North Korea tensions, (2) trade protectionism of the Trump administration and (3) ongoing conflicts in the Middle East will support gold prices next year, given the metal's safe-haven properties. Energy: Overweight. At the end of 3Q17, our open energy recommendations were up 45%, led by our long Dec/17 WTI $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl Call spread. We closed out our long Brent recommendations in 3Q17 for an average gain of 116%. (Please see p. 13 for a summary of trades closed in 3Q17). Base Metals: Neutral. Our tactical short Dec/17 copper position ended 3Q17 up 6%. We are placing a trailing stop at $3.10/lb. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge ended 3Q17 up 4.3%. The balance of risks continues to favor this as a strategic position, which we discuss below. Ags/Softs: Neutral. We lifted our weighting on ags - particularly grains - to neutral last week. Our long corn/short wheat position is up 1.2%. Feature Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables##BR##Explain Gold Prices Inflation And U.S. Financial Variables Explain Gold Prices Inflation And U.S. Financial Variables Explain Gold Prices Inflation and U.S. financial variables - particularly the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB), and real rates - are the main factors explaining the evolution of gold prices (Chart of the Week).2 Subdued inflation and low unemployment - a decoupling of the so-called Phillips Curve relationship that drives central-bank models of the macroeconomy - have dominated the macro landscape this year (Chart 2). We expect that current low inflation, positive growth, and low interest rates will remain in place for the next 12 months (Chart 3). Although economies such as the U.S. are growing above trend, inflation has remained weak due to a redistribution of demand through imports from countries with spare capacity, according to BCA's Global Investment Strategy.3 This is expected to continue in the near term to end-2018. However, we expect the USD to gradually strengthen, as the Fed cautiously normalizes policy rates, while other systemically important central banks remain accommodative relative to the U.S. central bank (Chart 4). Further falls in the unemployment rate will push the U.S. economy into the steep end of the Phillips Curve. Weak capex in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) era means demand for labor will increase as low unemployment - and associated higher wages - encourage higher consumer spending. This will cause inflation to lift next year or early 2019. Chart 2A Decoupling Of The Phillips Curve Relationship? Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold In such an environment, any U.S. tax cuts - which we still expect by the end of 1Q18 - will simply add fuel to the inflationary fire, and lift inflation expectations for next year and beyond. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team puts it, the tax cuts are a "form of modest stimulus ... (which), this far into the economic cycle, could have a significant effect."4 With unemployment at or below levels consistent with full employment in the U.S. and little slack of any sort, it would not take much in the way of fiscal stimulus to further pressure inflation. Chart 3No Pressure From Inflation Or U.S. Financial##BR##Variables...For Now No Pressure From Inflation Or U.S. Financial Variables...For Now No Pressure From Inflation Or U.S. Financial Variables...For Now Chart 4A Strengthening U.S. Dollar Will##BR##Keep The Pressure Off Gold A Strengthening U.S. Dollar Will Keep The Pressure Off Gold A Strengthening U.S. Dollar Will Keep The Pressure Off Gold Inflation vs. Fed Hikes In the face of the rising inflation we expect next year, gold's appeal will increase. As our previous research reveals, gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, i.e., the difference between nominal rates and inflation. This is a perfect context for gold. However, gold's ability to hedge inflation risks to portfolios will be partially hampered by a more-hawkish Fed. As inflation finally takes off, the Fed will feel confident to hike rates more aggressively. More than anything, this will put a bid under the USD, as U.S. interest-rate differentials vs. other currencies rise in favor of the dollar. In addition, real rates will rise as the Fed gains confidence it can lift policy rates without doing serious harm to the U.S. economy, and follows thru with its normalization. Thus, the gold market will be facing two opposing forces: On the one hand, gold will be an attractive inflation hedge as inflationary pressures build up. On the other, as the Fed begins to tighten to respond to those inflationary pressures, gold will lose its appeal in the face of rising real rates and a strong dollar. Chart 5Fed Will Ease Pressure Off Gold##BR##If It Gets Ahead Of Inflation Fed Will Ease Pressure Off Gold If It Gets Ahead Of Inflation Fed Will Ease Pressure Off Gold If It Gets Ahead Of Inflation The timing of the Fed's rate hikes will be critical to the evolution of gold prices next year and beyond. We previously assumed that rate hikes will remain behind wage growth, which would be supportive of gold prices as inflation picks up. However, if the Fed begins hiking ahead of any realized uptick in inflation, this would create a stronger-than-expected headwind for gold (Chart 5). While we expect inflation to take off in 2H18, our House view calls for 2 to 3 hikes by then. This is a risk to our gold view. Longer term, Fed rate hikes could trigger a feedback loop that will make it difficult for the U.S. central bank policy to support low unemployment rates. As real rates rise, increased unemployment will lead households to spend less. Lower demand will force firms to reduce hiring. The accompanying slowing of U.S. growth will disseminate to the rest of the world, pushing the global economy into a shallow recession as early as 2H19. In all likelihood, this higher-inflation/higher-policy-rate period will be sniffed out by equity markets before the economy actually enters a recession, leading to a bear market. Somewhat counterintuitively, this will favor gold as a portfolio hedge, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: As U.S. unemployment continues falling, inflation will re-emerge, as predicted by the Philips Curve trade-off so important to central-bank policy. Gold then will face two opposing forces. Its inflation hedging properties will be partially hamstrung by rising real U.S. rates and a strengthening USD. Nevertheless, we will turn bullish gold towards the end of next year as signs of an equity bear market emerge. Gold Will Outperform In An Equity Bear Market Our modelling indicates gold is an exceptional safe-haven during downturns in equity markets.5 It is especially attractive in equity bear markets because its returns during such episodes are negatively correlated with the U.S. stock market. This relationship with equities does not hold in bull markets -- gold prices typically rise during such periods, but at a slower rate than equities (Table 1). Table 1Gold's Ability To Hedge U.S. Equities Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold In a Special Report titled "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?" BCA's Global Asset Allocation Strategy team looked at the performance of nine safe-haven assets and found, on average, they are negatively correlated with equities in every bear market since 1972.6 Although the current equity bull market still has room to run, recessions and bear markets tend to coincide (Chart 6). If the economy goes into recession in 2H19, equities could peak as early as the end of next year.7 Chart 6Bear Markets Usually Precede Recessions Bear Markets Usually Precede Recessions Bear Markets Usually Precede Recessions Gold's role as a global portfolio hedge during bear markets would thus support the hypothesis that the metal could enter a bull market as soon as end-2018 when equity markets start pricing in a recession (Chart 7). Things could get interesting at this point, since a clear indication the economy is entering into a recession likely will cause "traumatized" central bankers to turn overly dovish. This would add support to the gold market longer term.8 Chart 7Gold Outperforms During Recessions##BR##And Geopolitical Crises Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Correlations between safe havens decline during bear markets, as our GAA strategists found when they compared correlations by dividing the assets into three "buckets": currencies, inflation hedges, and fixed-income instruments. In this analysis, our GAA team found that gold outperformed TIPS and Farmland in the inflation-hedge bucket.9 Bottom Line: Gold is an exceptional hedge against downturns in equity markets. The bear market preceding the late-2019 recession we expect will put a bid under gold. The eventual turn to the dovish side by central bankers will further support the metal. Gold Will Hedge Geopolitical Risks A confluence of elevated geopolitical risks next year will drive part of gold's performance. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) group has highlighted the following three themes investors need to track going into next year: U.S.-China Tensions: Our geopolitical strategists believe that the Korean conflict is a derivative of a more important secular trend of U.S.-China tensions. They estimate the risk of total war on the Korean peninsula at less than 3% and believe that the market impact of North Korea's provocations has peaked in the late summer. Nevertheless, they warn against complacency, as the underlying tensions over Pyongyang's nuclear program remain unresolved and North Korea could break with its past patterns.10 If the North stages attacks against U.S. or Japanese assets, or international shipping or aircraft, for instance, it could cause a larger safe-haven rally than what we witnessed earlier this year. At the very least, geopolitically induced volatility may return as U.S. President Trump tries to convince the world that war is a real option - a critical condition for establishing a "credible threat" of war with which to influence North Korean behavior - and as the U.S. and China spar over other issues. Trump's protectionism: Trump's campaign promised significant trade-protectionism. While he has not yet acted on those promises, the risk is that he returns to them next year.11 These policies could impact the gold market by: a. Feeding fears that the United States is abandoning the global liberal order; b. Intensifying U.S. trade tensions and strategic distrust with China; c. Pressuring U.S. domestic inflation via higher import prices. This risk will become even more elevated if the Trump administration and Congress fail to pass any tax legislation this year. Our geopolitical strategists believe that such a failure, while not their baseline scenario, would drive Trump to focus on his foreign policy and trade agenda more intently, especially ahead of the midterm elections in November next year, which would increase safe-haven flows. 3. Mideast Troubles: While we are not alarmist about the Middle East, the risk of market-relevant conflicts will be higher over the coming 12 months than over the previous year, following the fall of ISIS. The latter gave reason for various regional powers to cooperate, while its absence will revive their grievances with each other. Kurdish assertiveness is a key consequence, highlighted by last month's Kurdish independence referendum.12 Iraqi forces have pushed ISIS out of major Iraqi cities and the slowdown in the fight against ISIS could push Iraqi forces to focus on regaining the province of Kirkuk. Kirkuk, which is home to major oil fields and reserves, has been under Kurdish control since 2014 when the Peshmerga forces there captured it from ISIS. As ISIS ceases to be a threat, Baghdad will try to regain control of these precious oil fields. The Kurdish conflict, as well as Trump's pressure tactics against Iran, will increase geopolitical risks in oil-producing (hence market-relevant) areas. Chart 82017 Risks Were Overstated 2017 Risks Were Overstated 2017 Risks Were Overstated In a recent study investigating how different "safe-havens" assets react to political and financial events, our GPS colleagues found that gold provides the best average returns following a major geopolitical event (Chart 7).13 Our House geopolitical view has maintained that political risks in 2017 were overstated. This was particularly the case in Europe, where much of the risk was exaggerated and merely the product of linear extrapolation from the outcomes of the U.K. referendum on EU membership and the U.S. presidential election. As such, we do not expect any European break-up risk to support gold prices next year. Although elevated Italian Euroscepticism is one lingering European risk that could impact gold markets, we see this as a long-term risk rather than a market catalyst arising from the Italian general election in May next year. Reflecting our view, the policy uncertainty index has fallen drastically in the last two months (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Elevated political risks in 2018 will further support the gold market. Most notable on our geopolitical strategists' minds are continued U.S.-China tensions (most notably over Korea), Trump's protectionist policies, and potential conflicts in the Middle East. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Our results show 1% increase in U.S. YoY CPI, 5 year real rates, and USD TWI are associated with a 4% increase, 0.18% decline and a 0.21% decline in gold prices, respectively. The adjusted R2 is 0.88. 3 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Outlook "Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," dated October 4, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Is King Dollar Back," dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 We use the S&P 500 Total Return (TR) index as a proxy for U.S. equities. 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?," dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, dated October 2, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Outlook "Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," dated October 4, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?," dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Armed conflict in the Middle East usually lead to a sharp rally in gold prices. Please see Table 1 from Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights 2017/18 fundamentals are supportive for corn. Lower production and stronger demand will put the market into a deficit. China's E10 mandate is a boon for ethanol, and the ags used to produce it. Imports will be needed in the transition phase. Fed's interest-rate normalization is a headwind to U.S. ag exports and will encourage foreign production. Move ags to neutral, stay strategically long corn/short wheat. Feature Lower production and stronger demand will put the corn market in a supply deficit. Wheat and soybeans, meanwhile, are projected to record a smaller surplus in 2017/18 compared to 2016/17 (Chart of the Week). The corn supply deficit will draw down ending stocks. Still, with a stocks-to-use (STU) ratio of 26%, global grain inventories remain at healthy levels. The small dip in STU ratios projected for the 2017/18 crop year signals a minor change from the generally upward trend since the 2007/08 world food-price crisis (Chart 2). However, China's still-massive inventories have been distorting our view of global grain markets. Policymakers are moving to reduce huge corn stocks and encourage ethanol production. This will be bullish for corn. We are lifting our weighting to neutral for ags, and are recommending a strategic long corn vs. short wheat position at tonight's close (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekGlobal Grain Markets##BR##Slowly Rebalancing Global Grain Markets Slowly Rebalancing Global Grain Markets Slowly Rebalancing Chart 2Despite Dip,##BR##Global STU Remain Healthy Despite Dip, Global STU Remain Healthy Despite Dip, Global STU Remain Healthy Chart 3Move Ags to Neutral On##BR##Shrinking Supply Surplus Move Ags to Neutral On Shrinking Supply Surplus Move Ags to Neutral On Shrinking Supply Surplus China's Massive Stockpiles Blur The View Of Grains Vulnerability World grains STU ratios remain more or less unchanged at ~ 27% since 2014/15. Within the grains complex, we see a decline in projected corn area planted in 2017/18, and an increase in area harvested for wheat and, to a larger extent, soybeans (Chart 4). In the case of corn and soybeans, this also reflects acreage expectations in the U.S., where corn farmers are projected to decrease their 2017 planted area by 3%, and increase soybean planted area by 7%. However, when we remove Chinese stocks from the world tally, the global STU ratio stands much lower, at ~ 20%. China's grains and soybean STU ratios have been holding at ~ 50% since 2014/15 (Table 1). Nonetheless, given China's relatively higher prices, we believe it is safe to say that Chinese stocks are not accessible to the world. China accounted for only ~0.3% of world grain exports in recent years. Thus, we do not consider them a supply-side risk factor. STU ratios are an indication of a commodity's vulnerability to demand- or supply-side shocks. When STU ratios are healthy, a shortage can be cushioned by the stored inventory. Thus, a lower ratio signifies that a shock would have a greater impact on the price. However, given that China's STU ratios are significantly greater than the rest of the world - China accounts for ~ 22% of world grain demand, and more than 60% of the world's grain inventories - they skew our view of the market (Chart 5). Chart 4Farmers Favor##BR##Soybeans Over Corn Farmers Favour Soybeans Over Corn Farmers Favour Soybeans Over Corn Table 1Stocks-To-Use*:##BR##China Is Distorting Our View Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Chart 5China's Inventories Account For##BR##Huge Chunk Of World Inventories Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Consequently, we find that excluding China from world inventory levels and STU ratios gives us a better indicator of the susceptibility of world ag markets to price shocks. This reveals that corn is more vulnerable to price changes compared to wheat and soybeans. Nevertheless in terms of demand, China remains an important market driver. Thus, ongoing changes to China's agriculture policies are a significant factor affecting our outlook. China's Evolving Ag Policies China's government is continuing down its path towards modernizing the country's agriculture policies by making them more market-oriented, and moving away from its one-policy-fits-all strategy. In the past, China's ag policies were motivated by efforts to prioritize food security and promote farming incomes. These policy goals manifested themselves in price floors across the board, which were continuously adjusted to the upside with rising input prices. While these policies were successful in incentivizing farmers to increase agricultural output, they also resulted in a "triple high" phenomenon: (1) high domestic production, (2) high imports, and (3) high domestic stocks (Chart 6). Domestic consumers increased their imports to take advantage of lower international prices, which meant that state agriculture stockpiles ballooned (Chart 7). Chart 6China "Triple High" Phenomenon China "Triple High" Phenomenon China "Triple High" Phenomenon Chart 7China Prices Still Too High China Prices Still Too High China Prices Still Too High In acknowledgement of these drawbacks, China has taken steps to remedy the "triple high phenomenon," most recently communicating the following changes: In rice and wheat markets, policymakers will attempt to improve the minimum-procurement price policy to reorient incentives. In cotton and soybean markets, a new target-price system will be put in place, which ensures that farmers are compensated when market prices fail to reach the stated target prices. Corn markets will see the biggest change in the government's procurement policy, as it will be eliminated and replaced with market-driven pricing. Subsidies to farmers will be unrelated to corn prices. Although the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council has communicated a more receptive attitude towards imports in its "No. 1 Central Document," tariff rate quotas remain in place for wheat, rice, corn, cotton and sugar.1 Bottom Line: China's massive inventories distort global STU ratios. Nevertheless in term of demand, China remains significant. Do not discount the impact of China's evolving ag policies. Among Ags, Corn Is China's Priority Chart 8China Corn Deficit To Widen China Corn Deficit To Widen China Corn Deficit To Widen Among the changes outlined above, the largest shift in policy will be in the corn market. Tackling the huge stockpiles and rising output is a clear priority for the Chinese government. In fact, according to the latest USDA projections, China's corn market will be in a deficit in 2017/18 for the second year in a row. This follows five years of strong imports, which persisted despite domestic surpluses. What is notable about the 2017/18 deficit is that, according to USDA projections, it is largest on record. At 23mm metric tonnes (MT) it is more than 1.5 times the second-largest deficit recorded in 2000/01 (Chart 8). Although China's corn stockpiles make up more than 40% of global stocks, and the government has expressed a keenness to draw them down, there are reports that the corn in storage has deteriorated so much that it is no longer fit for animal or human consumption. Thus, in face of falling corn area harvested in China, and amidst higher domestic prices, corn imports are expected to continue filling the void.2 They are projected to record only a slight decline in 2017/18. The global corn balance will likely show the same trend. Even though world ex-China corn market is expected to remain in surplus, production is projected to fall while consumption is expected to increase. This will bring the surplus down to 1.8mm MT from 54.4mm MT in 2016/17. In fact, ending stocks in both China and the rest of the world are expected to come down in 2017/18. This will be the second year of declining inventories for China following five successive years of buildup, and is a clear result of the change in China's agricultural policies. Bottom Line: The biggest shift in China's policies is in the corn market. Efforts will remain focused on bringing down the massive stockpiles. However, domestic prices remain relatively high. This will continue incentivizing cheaper imports. China Ethanol Mandate: Two Birds With One Stone In an effort to get rid of the corn glut and reduce pollution, China's National Energy Administration (NEA) recently announced 2020 as the target for introducing E10 ethanol to the gasoline pool in the world's largest automobile market. Although Beijing had previously announced plans to double ethanol production by 2020, the E10 mandate is a more concrete step in that direction. It is a reiteration of the state's intention to draw its massive corn stocks and prioritize environmental conservation. Meeting China's ethanol needs would require an additional 36 ethanol plants, each with an annual capacity of 379mm liters, adding up to an additional 45mm MT of corn a year - more than 4% of current world demand - according to estimates from Reuters.3 However, as one of the main goals of the ethanol mandate is to reduce corn stockpiles, a Chinese official recently refuted the view that China will need to rely on imports. This seems overly optimistic. It is doubtful these ethanol plants will all be up and running in China by 2020. Thus, the country will likely rely on ethanol imports during the transition phase. This would be a boon for ethanol, and the ags used to produce it. Amid low corn prices, U.S. ethanol producers have been producing record quantities of the gasoline additive. However, the "blend wall" - which describes the limitation of mandating more ethanol content in gasoline due to its harmful effects on car engines - has limited domestic consumption of the biofuel. Furthermore, U.S. car sales have been anemic this year (Chart 9). Nonetheless, U.S. farmers have been able to take advantage of their low-cost production and export excess supplies to Brazil, where sugarcane-based ethanol has recently been relatively more expensive (Chart 10). Chart 9Strong U.S. Ethanol Production##BR##Despite Blend Wall Strong U.S. Ethanol Production Despite Blend Wall Strong U.S. Ethanol Production Despite Blend Wall Chart 10Tariffs A Buzzkill For##BR##U.S. Ethanol Exports Tariffs A Buzzkill For U.S. Ethanol Exports Tariffs A Buzzkill For U.S. Ethanol Exports The Ethanol Trade War Is On On August 23, as U.S. corn farmers prepared for a record harvest, Brazil - the main export destination for U.S. ethanol - imposed a 20-percent tariff-rate quota on ethanol imports from the U.S., which covered more than 1 million gallons a year. This came after U.S. exports to Brazil swelled by 300% in 1H17, and represented a serious blow for the U.S. ethanol export market. Similarly, China increased its tariffs on U.S. ethanol earlier this year. However, in an effort to protect its food crops, Beijing reportedly will invest in large-scale cellulose-based ethanol production and advanced biofuels by 2025.4 If successful, this would make the corn and sugar rally short-lived. Bottom Line: China's E10 mandate is a boon for ethanol, and the ags used to produce it. Especially given declining corn plantings. Imports will be needed in the transition phase. China Policies Encourage Soybean Production Chart 11Chinese Farmers Also Favor##BR##Soybeans Over Corn Chinese Farmers Also Favor Soybeans Over Corn Chinese Farmers Also Favor Soybeans Over Corn While state-directed incentives in China are set to reduce corn stockpiles, farmers are now shifting towards soybean production over corn (Chart 11). The area of corn harvested in China is projected to continue shrinking - and at a faster rate. The second annual decline in land dedicated to corn plantings comes after 12 years of continuous expansions at an average 4% p.a. On the flip side, Chinese farmers are expected to increase land dedicated to soybeans by 8% in 2017/18, after expanding it by 11% in the previous year. These increases follow a 6% average annual decline since 2010/11 to reach the smallest soybean area harvested on record in 2015/16. This is in line with China's efforts to ensure food security. Unlike other ag commodities, soybean STU ratios in China have been consistently below the global ratio. Weak USD Improved Competitiveness Of U.S. Exports A subdued U.S. dollar benefitted U.S. ag exports this year, and kept ag markets tight. With the exception of the Argentine Peso - which depreciated ~ 10% vis-à-vis the USD since the beginning of the year - currencies that are relevant to ags have strengthened slightly or remained largely stable since the beginning of the year (Chart 12). On one hand, a relatively weak USD makes U.S. ags more affordable for foreign markets. On the other hand, since commodities are priced in dollars, while costs are in local currencies, farmers in other ag-exporting nations lose on exchange-rate differentials. In trade-weighted terms, the USD reached its 2017 nadir in the beginning of September - depreciating by almost 9% since the beginning of the year. It has since appreciated by ~ 2% (Chart 13). The exchange-rate effect is evident in the data: U.S. ag exports were up in 2016/17 - by an estimated 36% year-on-year (yoy) for wheat, 21% for corn, and 12% for soybeans (Chart 14). Chart 12Ags Relevant Currencies##BR##Have Held Their Ground Ags Relevant Currencies Have Held Their Ground Ags Relevant Currencies Have Held Their Ground Chart 13But Strengthening USD##BR##Bearish For Ags Going Forward But Strengthening USD Bearish For Ags Going Forward But Strengthening USD Bearish For Ags Going Forward Chart 14U.S. Exports:##BR##Will Slow Down In 17/18 U.S. Exports: Will Slow Down In 17/18 U.S. Exports: Will Slow Down In 17/18 In fact, U.S. wheat, which has been losing market share since 2012/13, is estimated to have accounted for 16% of the global export market in 2016/17, up from 12% in the previous year. With its exchange-rate advantage, the U.S. beat the EU as the top wheat exporter in 2016/17, exporting an estimated 29mm MT - a 36% yoy jump. The global market balance will become more fluid as the Fed proceeds on its path of interest-rate normalization. A stronger USD likely will favor grain exporters ex-US. At the September FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Janet Yellen strongly indicated a December rate hike was still on the table. If the Fed's normalization policy results in an additional one to two rate hikes by the end of next year - BCA's House view - then U.S. exports of wheat and corn can be expected to be especially hard hit by the currency headwind. The USDA projects an 8% and 19% fall in U.S. exports of wheat and corn in 2017/18, respectively. However, supportive weaker fundamentals in the soybean market are expected to keep U.S. exports strong. Unlike wheat and corn, Chinese imports of soybean are expected to continue increasing in 2017/18. Bottom Line: A subdued U.S. dollar benefitted U.S. exporters since the beginning of 2017. Going forward, the global market balance will become more fluid as the Fed proceeds with interest-rate normalization. Views And Recommendations Despite expanding soybean acreage, we do not foresee much price downside. Supportive China fundamentals in the form of an STU ratio that is below the rest of the world - an abnormality for agriculture commodities - will ensure that China's demand remains strong. However, U.S. supplies - and, most importantly, exports - will remain strong. Thus, within the grains complex, we are neutral soybeans. The corn market is a different story. Given that China's ethanol mandate will draw down the state's massive corn reserves, we have a strategically bullish bias when it comes to corn. Although China has expressed its intention to be self-sufficient in ethanol production, we expect that it will need to import the biofuel, at least in the short run. This is expected to be a boon for ethanol producers, especially since it comes as Chinese farmers divert their land away from corn. While wheat is expected to remain in surplus in 2017/18, corn is projected to record a 21mm MT deficit. Furthermore, STU ratios are projected to fall in the case of corn, and increase in the case of wheat. Bottom Line: We are tactically neutral grains, but have a strategically bullish bias for corn. In addition to China's continued focus on modernizing its agricultural policies, we expect stronger oil prices to pull up costs in the longer run. A stronger-than-expected USD is a downside risk to our view. It would encourage foreign farmers to increase production, and render U.S. ags less competitive in international markets. We are lifting our overall weighting to neutral, given our assessment of global fundamentals. In addition, we are recommending a strategic long corn vs. short wheat position to capitalize on the bullish fundamentals we see emerging in corn. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 The WTO responded to U.S. complaints over Chinese tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on certain agricultural commodities. It set up a dispute panel on September 22, 2017. 2 Please see "China to import more corn to meet ethanol fuel use: analyst," dated September 21, 2017, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "China set for ethanol binge as Beijing pumps up renewable fuel drive," dated September 13, 2017, available at reuters.com. 4 Cellulosic ethanol is produced by breaking down cellulose in plant fibers. However, its production process is more complicated than the ethanol fermentation process. While large potential sources of cellulosic feedstocks exist, commercial production of cellulosic fuel ethanol is relatively small. Potential feedstocks include trees, grasses and agricultural residues. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Oil Breakout: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. Trump Trade: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Taper: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Feature A More "Normal" Bond Market Chart of the WeekLike Deja Vu All Over Again Like Déjà Vu All Over Again Like Déjà Vu All Over Again Global bond yields have bounced very sharply off the September lows. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a 3-month intraday high of 2.37% yesterday, while the 10-year German Bund yield touched 0.5% last week. Bond markets have returned to focusing on traditional fundamentals, like growth and inflation, after spending a few weeks worrying about nuclear tensions with North Korea and other political matters. On that note, the global economic news continues to point towards continued solid growth, rising inflation pressures and, in response, less accommodative monetary policy. There is scope for additional increases in bond yields, as markets are still pricing in too much pessimism on inflation and too little hawkishness from central bankers. The latter is especially true in the U.S. where the Federal Reserve is sticking with its plans to deliver another 100bps of rate hikes by the end of 2018 if its growth and inflation forecasts are realized. The odds of that happening would increase substantially if the Trump Administration can successfully deliver tax cuts, which would represent a very rare occurrence of a fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment in the U.S. The announcement last week of the Trump tax cut proposals did send a whiff of the old "Trump trade" dynamic through financial markets. The U.S. Treasury curve bear-steepened, the U.S. dollar rallied, inflation expectations rose and the S&P 500 blasted through the 2500 level to hit a new all-time high. Stocks of companies that pay higher tax rates outperformed, just like they did after the election of President Trump nearly one year ago (Chart of the Week). Add in some additional reflationary pressure from Brent oil prices approaching $60/bbl, and it is no surprise that yield curves in most Developed Markets (not just the U.S.) steepened. With this reflationary backdrop, amid tight labor markets and a solid pace of coordinated global growth, we continue to recommend fixed income investors maintain a defensive duration posture, while favoring spread product over government bonds. Yields will continue to rise in the next 6-12 months, but led more by the long-end initially. In particular, we expect government bond yield curves to extend the recent trend of bear-steepening, for three reasons: rising inflation expectations, increased optimism on U.S. fiscal policy and what it means for the Fed, and the upcoming announcement of a tapering of bond purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB). Are Bond Investors Too Complacent On The Inflationary Impact Of Higher Oil Prices? We have received a surprisingly small amount of criticism from the BCA client base about our bearish strategic view on global government bonds in recent months. Perhaps that is because our clients also have a negative opinion on duration risk. At our annual investment conference in New York last week, we conducted polls which showed that a majority of the attendees expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to rise to between 2.5% & 3% by this time next year. At the same time, only 1 in 4 respondents felt that being short duration in U.S. Treasuries was the "contrarian" trade that was most likely to succeed over next 12 months - perhaps because betting on higher yields is not really a contrarian opinion right now! Yet we wonder how aggressively investors in aggregate, and not just BCA clients, are positioned for a rising yield environment. The market is only discounting 40bps of Fed rate hikes over the next twelve months, even as the U.S. economic data flow continues to improve and the Trump Trade is coming back in style (Chart 2). Survey data shows that professional bond managers are running only small duration underweights, yet speculators are still running very net long positions in Treasury futures. In other Developed Markets, there are not a lot of rate hikes priced outside of Canada - where the central bank actually is tightening policy - despite our Central Bank Monitors all calling for policymakers to become less dovish, if not more outright hawkish, as we discussed last week.1 In their defense, bond investors have had a lot of non-economic factors to digest in the past couple of months - not the least of which is judging how much of an "apocalypse premium" to price into bond yields given the nuclear saber rattling between D.C. and Pyongyang. Yet when stepping back away from the headlines and tweets, bond markets have been noting the implications of rising oil prices in a typical manner - higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves. Oil prices have risen over $10/bbl since the June lows, led by a combination of rising demand on the back of an expanding global economy and a diminished supply response that has seen excessive inventories start to be wound down (Chart 3). BCA's commodity strategists have been expecting such a move to unfold, and prices have already risen into the $55-60/bbl range (on Brent crude) that they were calling for towards year-end. While a move beyond $60/bbl is not currently expected, any additional upside surprises in global growth can only tighten the supply/demand balance in an oil-bullish direction. At a minimum, oil prices can consolidate recent gains, providing a floor to inflation expectations. Already, the breakeven rate on 10-year TIPS in the U.S. have risen 18bps off the June lows, which has prevented the slope of the Treasury curve from flattening even as the 2-year Treasury yield hit an 9-year high last week (Chart 4). We expect to see more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve in the next few months as realized inflation rates begin to grind higher and the Fed will be relatively slow to respond - they'll need to see the inflation pick up first before delivering more rate hikes. This will result in higher market-based inflation expectations (i.e. wider TIPS breakevens) as investors price in a greater chance that inflation will sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. While oil is not the only factor that matters for U.S. inflation, it is a lot harder for investors to believe that core PCE inflation can rise to 2% without higher oil prices. Chart 2A Revival Of The Trump Trade? A Revival Of The Trump Trade? A Revival Of The Trump Trade? Chart 3A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil Chart 4Oil Vs. The U.S. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.S. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.S. Yield Curve A similar dynamic is taking place in other countries. Inflation expectations (linkers or CPI swaps) are rising alongside rising energy prices in the Euro Area (Chart 5), U.K. (Chart 6), Canada (Chart 7) and Australia (Chart 8). The moves in expectations are largest in countries experiencing stronger growth (the Euro Area and Canada), and more modest where growth is mixed (the U.K.) and where realized inflation is still very low (Australia). Yield curves have generally steepened in response to the reflationary rise in oil prices except for Canada, where the central bank has already delivered two surprise rate hikes over the summer and markets have priced in nearly three more hikes over the next year. Yet even there, global reflation will put steepening pressure on the Canadian yield curve without additional hawkishness from the Bank of Canada. Chart 5Oil Vs. The German Yield Curve Oil vs The German Yield Curve Oil vs The German Yield Curve Chart 6Oil Vs. The U.K. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.K. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.K. Yield Curve Chart 7Oil Vs. The Canada Yield Curve Oil vs The Canada Yield Curve Oil vs The Canada Yield Curve Chart 8Oil Vs. The Australia Yield Curve Oil vs The Australia Yield Curve Oil vs The Australia Yield Curve Japan, as always, remains the outlier to global trends. While oil prices have been rising even in yen terms, inflation expectations have remained subdued and the JGB yield curve has stayed flat (Chart 9). With the Bank of Japan targeting a 0% yield on the benchmark 10-year JGB as part of its current monetary policy framework, the link between energy prices, inflation expectations and the slope of the yield curve will remain broken in Japan. This makes JGBs a very low-beta government bond market, and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan given our bias toward a defensive portfolio duration posture. Chart 9Oil Vs. The Japan Yield Curve Oil vs The Japan Yield Curve Oil vs The Japan Yield Curve Net-net, we see oil as continuing to provide a steepening, reflationary bias to global bond yields in the next few months, as the impact of the rise in energy prices feeds through into faster rates of headline inflation. How central banks respond will determine what curves do beyond that but, for now, the bias is towards steeper curves. Bottom Line: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. How Will The Trump Tax Plan Impact The Treasury Curve? Ask The Fed Another factor that will put steepening pressure on global yield curves, especially in the U.S., is the likelihood of the Trump fiscal stimulus coming to fruition. The White House has chosen to refocus its policy efforts on getting aggressive tax cuts implemented. This is low-hanging fruit for a president that needs a legislative victory after fighting a losing battle on health care reform. Last week, the latest Trump tax plan was unveiled, which is centered on delivering large cuts on corporate taxes, reducing the number of personal income tax brackets, eliminating many large tax deductions, allowing companies to fully expense investment spending at an accelerated rate, and introducing a territorial tax system that would exempt U.S. corporate taxes on the foreign earnings of U.S. companies. The Tax Policy Center unveiled its initial assessment of the Trump tax plan last Friday, which is expected to reduce U.S. federal tax revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years and another $3.2 trillion in the following decade.2 The White House is betting on so-called "dynamic scoring" of the tax plan to recoup some of that lost revenue via higher economic growth, although that is filled with unrealistic expectations to prevent an unwanted surge in federal deficits. More likely, the Trump plan would result in a major increase in federal budget deficits over the next decade, similar to the levels estimated by Moody's last year in its own analysis of the Trump fiscal platform.3 In Chart 10, we show how periods of widening federal budget deficits typically coincide with periods of U.S. Treasury curve steepening. Usually, this is merely the business cycle at work, with deficits widening during economic downturns as tax revenues plunge and counter-cyclical government expenditure increases. What is also at work is the monetary policy cycle, with the Fed delivering rate cuts during recessions when the output gap is widening and inflation pressures are diminishing, thus bull-steepening the yield curve. Chart 10Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Yet the current Trump tax proposal comes at a time when the U.S. economy is operating close to full employment with the output gap essentially closed (middle panel). This means that any impetus to U.S. economic growth from the fiscal easing can cause inflation pressures to build up in a manner different than typical periods of widening budget deficits. This should initially impart steepening pressures on the Treasury curve, but in a bearish fashion via higher longer-term inflation expectations. However, the eventual path for the Treasury curve will be determined by how much the Fed responds to the fiscal easing via tighter monetary policy. Typically, the slope of the Treasury curve is highly negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate (adjusted by headline inflation), with a higher real rate coinciding with a flatter curve and vice versa (bottom panel). Right now, the market is discounting only a modest rise in real U.S. policy rates, looking at the difference between forward Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates and forward CPI swap rates. That market-implied "real rate" is expected to stay in a modest range between 0% and 1% until well into the next decade. The Fed is also forecasting a rise in the real funds rate to 0.75%, but over a much faster time horizon - within two years - than the market. This is in the context of U.S. core inflation sustainably returning to the Fed's 2% target, which will allow the Fed to eventually raise rates to its current "terminal" rate projection of 2.75%. Thus, when simply eyeballing the relationship between real rates and the slope of the curve in Chart 10, the risk is that real rates will be higher than the market expects over time, and the Treasury curve will be flatter, all else equal. Yet when looking at the slope of the Treasury curve that is currently priced into the forwards, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart 10, a substantial flattening is already discounted over the next decade. Admittedly, the correlation between the real funds rate and the slope of the curve has changed over past decades, and the curve can likely be flatter for a lower level of real yields than in years past. Yet, even allowing for that, the market does seem to be discounting a very aggressive rise in real interest rates over the coming decade - one that is unlikely to be realized unless the Fed delivers a much higher path of interest rates then they are currently projecting. Which brings us back to the Trump fiscal stimulus. If the corporate tax cuts do provide a boost to economic growth next year via increased investment spending and hiring activity, in a way that also overheats the U.S. economy and boosts core inflation, then the Fed may be forced to raise rates at a faster pace than planned. This would result in a much flatter yield curve and would raise the risks of a recession in 2019, which is a scenario we think is highly plausible, especially if there is a change at the top of the FOMC. Late last week, it was revealed that President Trump had interviewed several candidates for the position of Fed Chair. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current governor Jerome Powell were the names that caught the market's attention. Warsh has been a vocal critic of the Fed's slow unwind from the unusual post-crisis monetary policies, and is thus considered a monetary hawk who would want to raise rates higher, and faster, than the current FOMC. Powell is more pragmatic and would likely maintain the status quo at the Fed. The possibility of a more hawkish Fed chair has shown up in online prediction markets, where the "prices" of candidates that are perceived to be more hawkish (Warsh, John Taylor) rose while the prices of the more dovish candidates (Janet Yellen, Gary Cohn) fell (Chart 11). Right now, the online punters have Warsh in the lead, but the intraday "trading" has been volatile. The intersection of U.S. fiscal policy and monetary policy will be critical to determine the future path of U.S. bond yields over the next year. Right now, it appears that there is too much flattening priced into the Treasury curve relative to the expected path of the funds rate and inflation, as the Fed is unlikely to raise real rates much beyond their current projections. That could change if the Trump tax cuts can deliver a faster pace of productivity growth and higher equilibrium real interest rates. Although the post-war history of the U.S. shows that tax cuts by themselves do not raise the potential growth rate of the economy unless they lead to a major increase in investment spending, and even then the impact takes years to be seen (Chart 12). Chart 11Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Chart 12Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth For now, we think it makes more sense to bet against the substantial flattening in the forwards by positioning for a steeper Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Tapering: Steepening Yield Curves Through The Term Premium The other major factor that should steepen global yield curves in the next several months is the expectation of a change in policy from the ECB. The central bank has been gently preparing the market since the early summer for a shift to a less accommodative policy stance, in response to robust economic growth and slowly rising core inflation (Chart 13). A decision on the changes to the asset purchase program will take place at the October 26th ECB policy meeting. This will involve a reduction in the monthly pace of bond buying and, likely, some guidance as to when the asset purchase program will end. A change in short-term interest rates is highly unlikely before the bond purchases have been fully tapered, as this would go against the current forward guidance from the ECB that states that interest rates will remain at low levels well after the purchases have stopped. As we have discussed throughout this year, we see the ECB having no choice but to begin tapering its asset purchase program. The deflationary tail risks from 2014/15 have faded and, perhaps more importantly, the ECB is running into operational constraints on which bonds it can continue to buy. A likely outcome will be an announcement that the pace of bond buying will slow from the current €60bn/month to least ½ of that pace starting in January 2018. At mid-year, the policy will likely be reevaluated and, if the economy has not slowed materially and/or inflation rolled over, a full tapering of the bond buying would be announced, ending at the end of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2019. A rate hike would not take place until late 2019, which is where the market is currently priced. In the absence of rate hikes, most of the impact on Euro Area bond yields from the tapering will come from a widening of the term premium on longer-maturity bonds. If the pace of growth slows to zero, this could result in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield returning all the way back to 1% (bottom two panels). This would still be a very low yield by historical standards, in line with structurally lower growth rates and high government debt levels in Europe. But the path to that 1% yield would be very damaging for bond returns as Euro Area yield curves bear-steepen. While the link between our estimates of the term premiums in the major developed markets is not airtight, there has been a loose correlation between them during the post-crisis "quantitative easing" era (Chart 14). If recent history is any guide, a slower pace of ECB bond buying should coincide with steeper global yield curves, all else equal. All else is likely NOT equal, as an unruly response of risk assets and currency markets to a tapering could alter the likely path of growth and inflation expectations and, eventually, interest rates. But, at this moment, an ECB taper is more likely to result in steeper global yield curves. Chart 13An ECB Taper Will Result In##BR##Higher Term Premia In Europe... An ECB Taper Will Result In Higher Term Premia In Europe... An ECB Taper Will Result In Higher Term Premia In Europe... Chart 14...And Perhaps In Other##BR##Bond Markets, As Well ...And Perhaps In Other Bond Markets, As Well ...And Perhaps In Other Bond Markets, As Well Bottom Line: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Less Dovish Rhetoric Is Justified", dated September 26th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf 3 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf The Case For Steeper Yield Curves The Case For Steeper Yield Curves Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns