Developed Countries

As stocks have been stuck in a mini 'risk-off' phase, investors have begun to question whether the current global growth soft patch will prove transitory or morph into a severe global growth deceleration. We side with the former. The latest ISM manufacturing survey print is clearly signaling that SPX momentum will resume its ascent in the coming months (second panel). Further, the IHS Markit U.S. manufacturing PMI has been steeply diverging from the J.P. Morgan-calculated global manufacturing PMI (third panel) but, given America's heavy weighting in global output, recent strength in the U.S. should pull global growth higher. What could push our still constructive cyclical 9-12 month equity view offside is a surge in the U.S. dollar. The greenback's trough coincided with last year's peak in global growth (bottom panel), and further dollar appreciation would represent a meaningful headwind to earnings growth, particularly in the U.S. tech sector with its hefty foreign sales exposure. Netting it all out, there are high odds that the U.S. will lead global growth higher in the coming quarters and result in a recoupling higher of global growth, assuming the greenback stops appreciating. This would support low double digit calendar 2019 SPX profit growth. Under such a macro backdrop, it still pays to maintain a cyclicals over defensives portfolio bent; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 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. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights One of Europe's major success stories is the structural and broad-based increase in female labour participation rates. The trend is set to continue for the next decade. Stay overweight the Personal Products sector as a long-term position. Italy's decade-long stagnation is not a deep-seated structural malaise. It is a protracted cyclical downturn resulting from a banking system that was never repaired after the 2008 financial crisis combined with wholly inappropriate fiscal austerity. We expect Italy's new government to push back against the EU's misguided fiscal rules and correct this decade-long error. Buy exposure to Italian real estate as a new long-term position either directly or through Italy's small real estate equity sector. Feature Some analysts persist on comparing economic performances on the basis of real GDP per head of total population. But the total population includes children and the elderly who cannot contribute to economic output. Therefore, a correct assessment of economic performance should look at real GDP per head of working-age population. Chart I-1AWomen Are Powering The European Economy... Chart I-1B ...Less So In The U.S. Admittedly, as the retirement age rises, the definition of 'working-age' will gradually change, but the general principle still holds: only count in the denominator those who can contribute to economic output. GDP per head of working-age population can grow in several ways. One way is to get more output or better output from each hour worked through improvements in efficiency and/or quality. As this improvement is theoretically limitless, it is the main source of productivity gains in the long run. A second way is for each worker to work more hours. But given the physical and legal constraints on productive working time, there is only limited scope to increase output in this way. How Women Are Powering The European Economy There is one other way to increase GDP per head of working-age population: increase the percentage of the working age population that is in the labour force.1 In other words, structurally increase the labour participation rate. If this participation rate is already high - as it is for men - then there is little scope to increase it much further. But if the participation rate is low - as it is for European women - then there is considerable scope to increase it. This brings us to one of Europe's major, and largely untold, success stories - the structural and broad-based increase in female participation rates (Chart I-1-Chart I-5). Over the past twenty years, the EU28 female participation rate has risen from 57% to 68%, with an especially large contribution from the socially conservative southern countries. In Spain, female participation has surged from 47% to 70%. In Italy, it has shot up from 42% to 56% and has clear scope to rise much further. Chart I-2Italy: Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-3Spain: Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-4Germany: Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-5France: Labour Force Participation Rate What is driving this structural trend? Two things. First, the employment sectors that are growing structurally - healthcare, social care, and education - tend to employ more women than men. Second, European countries have legislated a raft of policies encouraging women to join and remain in the labour force: generous paid maternity leave and subsidised childcare. The trend is for further improvements, with the focus now on improving paternity leave. Sharing parental and family responsibilities between mothers and fathers allows more women to enter and stay in the labour force.2 For the ultimate end-point in the trend, look to the Scandinavian countries which started such policies in the early 1970s. In Sweden, labour force participation for women and men is almost identical: 81% versus 84%. If the EU eventually adopts the Scandinavian model, it would mean another 20 million European women in employment and contributing to economic output (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Another 20 Million European Women ##br##Could Join The Labour Force Dispelling Two Myths: The Euro Area And Italy Having established that economic performances should be compared on the basis of GDP per head of working age population, we can now dispel two common myths. The first myth is that the U.S. generates superior productivity growth than the euro area. It is true that the U.S. has been better at getting more output from each hour worked, so on this measure, the U.S. does win. Against this, the euro area has been much better at getting more of its working-age population - albeit mostly women - into employment. So on this measure, the euro area wins (Chart of the Week). The net result is that, over the past twenty years, the U.S and the euro area have generated exactly the same growth in real GDP per working-age population (Chart I-7). Of course, the euro area's structural improvement in female participation rates cannot continue forever, but it can certainly continue for another decade or so, and this is generally the longest time horizon that most investors care about. Chart I-7The Euro Area And The U.S.: Identical Growth In Real GDP Per Head Of Working-Age Population The second myth concerns the subject du jour: Italy. Many people claim that Italy's economic stagnation is due to deep-seated structural problems which differentiate it from other major economies. The problem with this narrative is that from the mid-1990s until 2008 the growth in Italy's real GDP per head of working age population was little different to that in Germany, France or the U.S. (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Italy Performed In Line With Other Major Economies Until 2008 Italy's economic stagnation only started after the 2008 global financial crisis. After a financial crisis which cripples the banking system, there are two golden rules: unleash fiscal stimulus; and repair the banking system as quickly as possible. The U.S. and U.K. followed the golden rules perfectly and immediately; Ireland followed a couple of years later; Spain waited until 2013. But in each case, the economies rebounded very strongly as the fiscal stimulus kicked in and the banks recuperated. Italy neither unleashed fiscal stimulus, nor repaired its banks - so its economy has stagnated for a decade. Moreover, if output stagnates for a decade, it follows arithmetically that productivity growth will also look poor. In a back-to-front argument, critics have pounced on this as evidence of excessive 'red tape' and 'structural problems'. But this is a misdiagnosis of the malaise. To reiterate, Italy's real GDP per working-age population was growing very respectably before 2008. Italy's misfortune is that its indebtedness has an unusual profile: more public debt than private debt. France and Spain (and other major euro area economies) have the usual profile: less public debt than private debt. So the EU's fiscal rules - which can see only public debt and are blind to private debt - have severely and unfairly constrained Italy's ability to respond to financial crises. While every other major economy followed the golden rules to recover from the 2008 crisis, Italy could neither unleash fiscal stimulus to kick start the economy nor recapitalise its dysfunctional banking system. We expect Italy's new government to push back against the EU's misguided fiscal rules and correct this decade-long error. Two Structural Investment Conclusions This week's two investment conclusions are both long term, and require a buy and hold mentality. The first conclusion reiterates a structural position: overweight the Personal Products sector. This is based on our expectation that, in Europe, female participation rates will continue their structural uptrend; while in the U.S. we expect female participation rates to continue outperforming male participation rates. Therefore the sales and profits of the Personal Products sector, in which female spending dominates, will benefit from a multi-year tailwind, at least relative to other sectors. And the extent of this tailwind is not fully discounted in valuations. The second conclusion is a new long-term recommendation: buy exposure to Italian real estate. This is based on our assessment that Italy's decade-long stagnation is not a deep-seated structural malaise. Instead, it is a protracted cyclical downturn resulting from a banking system that was never repaired after the 2008 financial crisis combined with wholly inappropriate fiscal austerity. Removing these shackles will allow a long-term recovery, just as it did for Spain in 2013. If we are right, the best multi-year buy and hold play is Italian real estate which has been in a decade-long bear market (Chart I-9). For those that cannot directly invest in property, Italy has a small real estate equity sector which faithfully tracks the long term profile of real estate prices (Chart I-10), and whose main component is Beni Stabili. The caveat is that the stock has a market cap of just €2 billion; the appeal is that it offers a juicy dividend yield of 4.5%. Chart I-9Italian Real Estate Has Suffered ##br##A Decade-Long Bear Market Chart I-10Italian Real Estate Equities##br## Track Real Estate Prices Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 And in employment. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Female Participation: Another Mega-Trend" published on April 6, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week, we note that the 130-day fractal dimension for platinum versus nickel is close to its lower bound, a level which has consistently predicted a tradeable countertrend move over the following 130 days. Hence, this week's trade is long platinum/short nickel on a 130 horizon before expiry. The profit target is 14% with a symmetric stop-loss. Our two other open trades, long SEK/GBP and long PLN/USD, are both in profit. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights Private debt raised a record $115 billion through 158 funds in 2017. Aggregate AUM has grown from $244 billion in 2007 to $664 billion in 2017. Private debt enjoys a higher yield and return, along with lower defaults, than traditional corporate bonds. This is driven by stronger covenants and collateral structures. Unlike traditional corporate debt with fixed coupons, most private debt has floating-rate coupons making it an attractive interest-rate hedge. Direct lending and mezzanine debt are low risk-low return capital-preserving strategies. Distressed and venture debt are more aggressive plays on operationally troubled firms and start-ups. Investors should allocate to private-debt funds with global exposure, to diversify away from U.S. corporate cash flow risk and increase exposure to different credit cycles. Business Development Companies (BDCs) are a liquid alternative to direct lending that provide impressive yield, but at the cost of higher volatility. Feature Introduction Private debt involves lending by institutional investors to middle-market companies in the form of investment-grade senior-secured debt, or subordinated debt. This space has experienced explosive growth: assets under management (AUM) have increased to $664 Bn in 2017 from $244 Bn in 2007. The key supply and demand factors driving this growth are: Chart 1Banking Sector Consolidation Bank Consolidation: For a couple of decades the U.S. banking industry has been consolidating, creating fewer but larger (Chart 1) commercial banks. These larger banks prefer to lend to larger rather than mid-market companies. Regulation: Following the financial crisis, increased regulation (for example, Dodd Frank and the Basel capital adequacy rules) forced commercial banks to reduce lending to the mid-market segment. This led to the rise of non-bank institutional lending. Search For Yield: With global bond yields depressed, institutional investors with target returns turned to alternate sources of income. This has created a new source of demand for private debt. Liquidity: The Volcker Rule, which banned proprietary trading in bond markets, reduced liquidity. ICG, a specialist asset manager, estimated that it took seven times as long for investors to liquidate bond portfolios in 2015 as it did in 2008. This made private debt's illiquidity relative to public markets less clear than previously.1 In this report, we run through the basics of private debt, and analyze past performance and fundraising cycles. In the following sections, we analyze different private-debt strategies and explain how investors can benefit from allocating to these. We close with a brief word on Business Development Companies (BDCs). Our conclusions are that: Private debt has returned an average net IRR of 13.0% from 1989-2015. This compares to an annualized total return of 7.0% and 7.2% for equities and corporate bonds respectively. Direct lending and mezzanine debt are intended to be capital preservation strategies that offer more stable returns while minimizing downside. Investors should allocate to these strategies from their alternative credit bucket. Distressed debt and venture debt are intended to be return-maximizing strategies that offer larger gains, but with a higher probability of losses. Investors should allocate to these strategies from their private equity bucket. In the late stages of an economic cycle, investors should deploy capital defensively through first-lien and other senior debt positions. In contrast, a recession would create opportunities for distressed strategies and within deeper parts of the capital structure. Unlike private equity and other private investments, private debt investors start receiving positive cash flow immediately and are charged management fees only on invested capital. This reduces the "J curve" effect. A note on the data we use in this report. All the returns and fund data are based on the private debt online platform from Preqin Ltd. Given the uncertainty around the investment horizon and cash flows of a private debt fund, it is hard to create a traditional total return index. Instead, we use the concept of internal rate of return (IRR) to understand past realized returns. (See Appendix for more detail on how the data is collected). The Private Debt Market Private debt funds raised a record $115 billion through 158 funds in 2017, surpassing the previous high of $100 billion in 2015. Total assets under management (AUM) have reached $664 Bn (Chart 2). There has been a trend towards the creation of larger funds, just as in private equity. Additionally, it took managers only 14 months to close fund-raising in 2017 versus 19 months in 2016, another testament to investors' strong appetite for this asset class. Finally, 58% of funds exceeded their target size. Below we describe key characteristics of this asset class. (In the Appendix, we explain in detail the key terms, and methodologies used to measure performance.) Chart 2Strong Investor Demand Chart 3Private Debt Market Return And Risk: Table 1 shows the past realized return for each private debt strategy and the range of outcomes that investors can expect from allocating to them. Distressed and venture debt produce a higher average IRR, but with greater dispersion in returns. Compared to traditional corporate credit, private debt enjoys a higher yield and return, along with lower default rates and credit loss.2 This is because public bonds are mostly unsecured obligations with standard indentures, whereas private debt investors have more control over terms and conditions such as covenants and collateral structures. Additionally, private debt can improve performance (Chart 3) by diversifying the sources of risk and return,3 and gives access to more esoteric exposures such as illiquidity and manager skill. Illiquidity premia are generated from both asymmetric information flow about target companies and also the low frequency of transactions. Another attractive feature is the ability to customize deals with favorable security packages and cash flow patterns to meet unique liability and payment schedules. Finally, many of the more aggressive private debt strategies provide investors with the option to convert to equity ownership, thereby further improving risk-return dynamics with an equity upside. Table 1Capital Preservation Vs. Return Maximizing Unlike most traditional corporate bonds with fixed coupon payments, most private debt investments have floating-rate coupons making them attractive hedges in rising-rate environments. Additionally, cash distributions to investors include both interest and principal repayments, and are mostly quarterly. Unlike traditional bullet repayment structures, periodic principal repayments reduce the average effective duration of the investment, and reduce refinancing risk. Finally, risk levels in the private debt space are highly dependent on the investment strategy; we address this issue in the next section. Diversification: Another important aspect of private debt is its ability to provide uncorrelated returns. Cross-asset class correlations have been rising since the start of easy monetary policy early this decade. The core risk exposure in a private-debt investment comes from idiosyncratic firm-specific sources, which is not the case with publicly traded corporate credit. Investors can gain exposure to different industries and customized duration horizons in the private space. Since deal origination is highly dependent on manager skills and relationships, private debt gives access to firms or projects that are not available via any index. Finally, private debt was the only group in the private space that did not experience a contraction in AUM during the financial crisis. Fund managers also had no challenges deploying capital - as seen by falling dry powder during the period. Chart 4Europe Will Be The Growth Engine Global Allocation: Investors looking to build a durable private-debt mandate will benefit tremendously from global allocation. This helps diversify away from the key risk factor of U.S. corporate cash flow, and also exposes returns to multiple credit cycles. Currently, North America is the largest and most developed private-debt market with issuance almost 4-5 times that of Europe. But looking forward, given the low level of non-bank penetration (Chart 4) in the lending market, Europe is likely to be the next growth engine. Investing in Europe versus the U.S. will have a few different characteristics: 1) lower leverage at the fund level; 2) a larger PIK4 (pay in kind) and smaller cash-pay5 component; 3) origination fees making up a greater portion of overall return. There has also been growth in the emerging markets/Asian private-debt space. Investors can expect an additional return of 4-6% relative to the U.S. and Europe for similar risk. A high level of idiosyncratic risk make these credits very attractive from a diversification perspective. For example, Australian and Korean authorities have very strict regulations on banks, thereby opening the door for alternative lenders. Moreover, the onshore and offshore markets created by capital controls in China increase the need for mezzanine and bridge financing. Deal Origination: For middle-market lending, there are three channels for sourcing deals: 1) sponsored, 2) direct (non-sponsored), and 3) capital markets. In the sponsored channel, private-debt funds can benefit by investing alongside control-focused private equity investors which also provide equity capital injections. In the non-sponsored or direct channel, private-debt funds have to maintain continuous communication and relationships with management teams, and this requires more involvement in terms of due diligence and portfolio monitoring. The capital markets channel involves participation in a third-party investment and comes with terms that have already been negotiated. Chart 5Compressing Fee Structures Chart 6Manager Selection Is Key Fee Structure: Fees (Chart 5) and administrative costs are important for an asset class where up to 25% of gross returns can be swallowed by costs. Compared to private equity, direct lending helps mitigate the effect of the "J-curve", as these funds typically charge management fees on invested capital, and carry over a hurdle rate. Increasing competition and rising dry powder have pushed management fees to the lowest level in 10 years. Finally, fees for direct-lending funds are much lower than other strategies because of the lack of equity components and a lower risk-return profile. Manager Selection: The heterogeneity in private debt means that picking the right general partner (GP) can have a big impact on returns (Chart 6). Like the entire private capital space, there is great dispersion between top-quartile managers and the rest. Additionally, there has also been a performance differential between first-time and returning managers. It is critical to conduct extensive due diligence. The private debt space consists of multiple strategies with different risk-return implications for a portfolio. Looking back at Table 1, these strategies can be split into the following two groups: Capital Preservation Strategies: These strategies offer more stable returns while minimizing downside. A more conservative risk-return profile means investors should allocate to these strategies from their alternative credit bucket. Direct lending and mezzanine debt fall under this group. Return Maximizing Strategies: These strategies offer larger gains but with a higher probability of deals going bust. A more aggressive risk-return profile means investors should allocate to these strategies from their private equity bucket. Distressed debt and venture debt fall under this group. Private Debt Strategies Direct Lending Chart 7Direct Lending Loans are made to middle-market companies without an intermediary bank or broker (Chart 7). This is done by going directly to private-equity sponsors or owner-operators of middle-market firms. Institutional lenders are more actively involved than commercial banks, offering customized financing solutions. The loans are mostly structured as term loans with 5-7 years maturity, and an emphasis on smaller loan sizes.6 These investors are sold with the intention of generating high current income with low volatility and losses. Most are senior secured loans underwritten as a multiple of EBITDA.7 Prospective investors compare direct lending to its public-market equivalent: syndicated leveraged loans. Direct lending offers a yield premium along with lower leverage levels, higher coverage ratios, and more conservative deal terms. Banking regulations such as Basel III and the new Federal Reserve loan guidelines will reduce banks' willingness to refinance the $180 Bn - $240 Bn of existing mid-market loans, which will give direct lenders a larger market to service. Additionally, with North American private equity dry powder at $530 Bn,8 there will be increased demand for direct lending to fund leveraged buyouts (LBOs). However, the direct lending space has grown 10-fold, from being an $18 Bn market in 2007 to $180 bn at the end of 2017. Investors looking to deploy capital in current market conditions may be skeptical. A recent development in the direct lending space, following the financial crisis, has been the creation of unitranche loans. This structure combines a senior and junior credit position into one blended loan and interest rate. The risk profile is a single lien that is often a senior first-lien position. Investors can benefit from advantageous pricing: the interest rate received falls between the rate of senior debt and subordinated debt. Deals originated through the private-equity sponsored channel have become very competitive. Investors should look at non-sponsored channel deals which are less crowded and make up a smaller fraction of the mid-market space. These are normally smaller and require more active due diligence, but potentially offer higher risk-adjusted returns compared to sponsored deals. Mezzanine Debt Chart 8Mezzanine Debt Directly originated loans that are subordinate to senior secured notes but senior to equity (Chart 8). These loans are secured by assets and are used to finance leveraged buyouts, recapitalize the balance-sheet, and for corporate acquisitions. They generally fill a funding gap due to insufficient capital from other sources. Most mezzanine loans are evaluated and structured based on the ongoing cash flow and enterprise value of the company, as opposed to asset-based lending which focuses on the liquidation value of assets. An added advantage is the ability to customize debt terms to match the cash flow profile of each company by changing the timing and amounts of current and deferred payments. This includes incurrence9 and maintenance10 covenants, unlike covenant-lite large-cap corporate issues. Given their subordinate position in the capital structure, investors can expect higher returns compared to direct lending (but at a higher risk, since these are highly leveraged situations). Coupon income is generally fixed-rate and paid in cash, and investors also enjoy call protection. Investors in this group mostly focus on total return versus income return in direct lending. This is because there exists an additional upside with the equity kicker,11 which means mezzanine holders enjoy features of both debt and equity. Additionally, not only do investors benefit from current payments in the form of cash interest and principal repayments, but also deferred payments through payment in kind (PIK) and bonus exit payments.12 The key risk with this investment is its junior position in the capital structure, putting the lender in first-loss position after the value of company drops by more than equity value. These investments tend to underperform when distressed managers outperform: environments of rising defaults, higher corporate leverage, and economic slowdown. Such events are bad for junior bondholders and reduce possible equity upside. Distressed Debt Chart 9Distressed Debt Investing in this group (Chart 9) can take a number of different forms depending on the manager's return and risk target and investment horizon. Investors are usually less familiar with the process and require fund managers with legal expertise to handle possible bankruptcy proceedings. In 2016, global non-performing loans reached 4%13 of total gross loans. The distressed market has changed substantially. In the early 2000s, funds could make attractive returns by effectively trading in and out of debt. Recently, fund managers have had to focus on restructuring and operational turnarounds which require private-equity like exposure. Since attractive opportunities in this space come less frequently, investors need to look for managers that are good at sourcing deals. What differentiates performance between different distressed managers is what they do with the securities after purchase. Most large returns will be generated through negotiation and restructuring, and only a smaller portion from "pull-to-par"14 investing. A key driver of returns is the accurate assessment of a borrower's enterprise value. Investors will have access to both a contractual coupon yield and also substantial capital appreciation driven by pull-to-par from a refinancing or settlement. Loan-to-own strategy. Taking an activist role with a target company will involve the possibility of converting to equity during bankruptcy proceedings. This also gives investors access to restricted information about the target and considerable leverage at the negotiating table. At the other end of the spectrum, managers target non-control15 transactions and acquire their debt at a discount to par with the hope of par refinancing driven by positive improvements at the firm. Investors should commit capital to distressed assets when fundamentals are solid and defaults are relatively low before the onset of the upturn in the economic cycle. Additionally, investors should analyze current political and economic trends to pinpoint where the next distressed opportunity will arise. Fund managers that keep ample dry powder waiting to be deployed will benefit from picking assets at beaten-down valuations. A classic example was following the 2014 oil bear market, when distressed managers with sufficient dry powder were able to source attractive deals. Additionally, investors looking to further customize risk-return dynamics can look to deploy capital to the growing distressed market in Asia. Along with years of rapid growth in China, there is a growing problem of bad corporate debt. However, investing in these new markets with different legislative mechanisms may require partnering with a local asset manager. Venture Debt CHart 10Venture Debt These are loans (Chart 10) to early-stage firms backed by venture capital. Family businesses seeking capital, but not willing to surrender control and ownership, will opt for venture debt. The loan is usually secured by intellectual property, receivables, and other intangible assets such as trademarks and copyrights. Venture debt is typically raised immediately after an equity round in order to minimize borrowing costs. For every four-to-seven venture equity dollars, one dollar will be financed by venture debt. The core function of venture debt is to extend the "cash runway",16 thereby achieving the next milestone/valuation driver. There are two structures of venture debt financing: 1) receivables financing - a firm will borrow against its receivables (at a 15-20% discount) to meet cash flow needs; and 2) equipment financing - structured as a lease for the purchase of equipment. In the first case, investors can expect a higher risk-return profile compared to the second given the more unpredictable nature of cash flows. Return stream consists of cash interest, PIK income, and equity warrants. The equity kicker is generally 10-25% of the loan value which gives investors an option to participate in subsequent equity rounds. Another interesting feature is that capital distributions are reinvested and recycled, maximizing IRR over the fund's life. In short, investors can expect some private equity-like upside with a baseline return from a debt component. With private-equity upside comes similar downside. The business of venture lending is very cyclical since it involves young businesses. During tough times, additional rounds of equity injection might be required to reduce cash burn. Additionally, there exists tremendous variability across vintage years, therefore it is important for investors to pick the right time to enter this space. Special Situations Chart 11Special Situations Managers in this space do not have a specific mandate and can cover a wide range of complex strategies targeting specific industry or geographic opportunities (Chart 11). Deal sourcing is harder since most opportunities are event-driven. The more popular types include rescue financing, balance-sheet restructuring, and non-performing loans (NPLs). Generally, most attractive opportunities for special situations arise at the beginning of a distressed cycle. Special-situation funds can be thought of as liquidity providers in situations of both micro and macro dislocations. In the case of the recent energy crisis in 2015, managers provided bespoke restructuring solutions for oil producers' capital structures as their debt matured. On the other hand, managers could also acquire a diversified portfolio of NPLs across sectors. Given that deal flow is highly dependent on firm specific or aggregate industry dislocations, investors need to pick managers with strong performance across multiple economic cycles and across the entire capital structure. Key risks depends on the type of mandate. For a manager with a niche focus, investors need to be wary about the strategy attracting increased attention, eventually decreasing the range of opportunities. For managers with a broad mandate, the risk lies with miscalculating a new and unfamiliar opportunity. Business Development Companies (BDCs) - A Liquid Alternative To Direct Lending Chart 12BDCs: Higher Yield, Higher Volatility BDCs are U.S. closed-end exchange-traded investment vehicles with an aggregate market cap of $33 billion17 specialising in private non-syndicated secured and unsecured middle-market corporate debt with daily liquidity (Chart 12). These structures were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980 to stimulate private investment in middle-market firms which had suffered during the stagflation that followed the 1973-1974 recession. These entities have legal and tax similarities with real-estate investment trusts (REITs) and master limited partnerships (MLPs): 1) annual distribution of 90% of income to shareholders, and 2) preferential tax treatment. Underlying assets are mostly directly originated middle-market loans with an increased use of covenants. They tend to have an average maturity of five years with a floating-rate coupon and origination fees which give 0.25% in additional income. Additionally, the maximum debt-to-equity leverage allowed is 1:1. Finally, investors can expect a fee structure of 1.5%/20%, with an 8% hurdle rate. One of the biggest attractiveness of BDCs is the high dividend yield relative even to other high-yielding assets such as REITs and MLPs. Additionally, BDCs have a positive yield spread versus high-yield bonds despite holding higher quality assets. This in turn leads to lower loss rates for BDCs compared to high-yield credit. However the annualized volatility of BDCs is far greater than equities, corporate and junk bonds. Conclusion Creating a well-balanced private-debt program requires deploying capital across the credit/economic cycle. Investors should strategically deploy capital to generate a meaningful yield over cash, while retaining agility to be able to move into higher risk/return assets when market sentiment recovers and opportunities arise. In a late-cycle phase, investors should deploy capital to senior debt direct lending with attractive asset coverage and strong current income. In a recessionary phase, investors should move into distressed assets and into deeper parts of the capital structure which will benefit from future expansion as the cycle improves. In an early cycle phase, investors should move into mezzanine debt and other equity-linked strategies with the potential to deliver strong performance through capital appreciation. Aditya Kurian Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1 http://www.icgam.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Rise of Private Debt as an institutional asset class Amin Rajan GENERIC.pdf 2 American Society of Actuaries. 3 From 2012 to 2017, the middle market exhibited stronger revenue and employment growth than the S&P 500. In 2017, the average revenue growth rate for middle-market companies was 8% compared to 5.3% for the S&P 500. Source: National Center for the Middle Market. 4 Under PIK, interest is paid by increasing the principal amount through capitalization of interest when it is due. 5 "Cash pay component" is the part of the quarterly payments received by private debt investors that are in the form of cash. 6 Average loan size for middle-market direct lending is $20M - $30M. 7 Direct lending funding is provided in terms of either Debt/EBITDA or Net Debt/EBITDA so that investors can better analyze a borrower's repayment capacity. 8 With dry powder of $530 Bn, and assuming a 60% debt, 40% equity capital structure, this implies over $750 Bn of future financing opportunities in sponsored buyouts. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. 9 If a borrower takes an action (dividend payment, acquisition), the resulting position would need to remain in compliance with the loan agreement. 10 The borrower needs to meet certain financial tests every reporting period in order to remain qualified for the loan. 11 Mezzanine debt providers often have the option to convert to equity at a future date, thereby participating in any upside. 12 A variable payment calculated as a percent of the change in the value of the company over the duration of the mezzanine facility. 13 Source: The World Bank. 14 Investors buying distressed debt trading at a discount in the hope of selling it at par when the company recovers and its bonds return to face value. 15 When the total position in the firm is too small to gain board or management representation. 16 When funding each round, venture capitalists look at how much cash the company is expected to burn to reach the next milestone, with each round typically designed to fund 12 to 14 months. If this expected cash burn phase extends beyond that period and the firm runs out of cash, venture debt could be used as a cash runway until the next round of venture capital funding. 17 Source: http://cefdata.com/bdc/

Underweight (Upgrade Alert) It is a well-established rule that where jet fuel prices go, airline stock prices will go the opposite direction. Thus, it is no surprise that the most recent peak in the S&P airlines index coincided with the most recent trough in jet fuel prices in early 2017; the former has since fallen steeply as the latter has soared (fuel prices shown inverted in top panel). Easing oil prices are a likely catalyst for a significant rerating in depressed relative valuations. Fuel hedges no longer play a significant role in earnings and lower fuel costs would translate directly to the bottom line. As a reminder, nearly all major players reiterated their pledge to avoid kerosene hedging earlier this year. Adding it up, we think downside risks to airlines have abated considerably and are well reflected in beaten down valuations (bottom panel). We are therefore compelled to add this transportation sub-index to our upgrade watch list. If there is any letup in jet fuel prices, we would not hesitate to crystallize relative profits north of 21% since our underweight inception. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P airlines index for now, but put in on upgrade alert; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.

Overweight (High Conviction) The S&P software index is on the cusp of breaching the 2000 relative performance all-time peak, and we reiterate the high-conviction overweight status of this key tech sub-index, that is up over 11% versus the SPX since the late-November inception.1 BCA's synchronized global capex upcycle theme is the fundamental driver of our sanguine software industry view. Currently, software investment is outpacing overall capital outlays (second panel). These software capex market share gains on the back of a growing overall capex pie bode well for relative profit growth. Our S&P software EPS growth model corroborates this encouraging news (third panel), pointing to ongoing exceptionally strong earnings growth. Meanwhile, the S&P software index has a pristine balance sheet with virtually no net debt (bottom panel); if our virtuous capex upcycle thesis further bolsters software sales/profits in the coming months, then more gains are in store for the S&P software index that will likely grow into its pricey valuations. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight status in the S&P software index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, INTU, EA, RHT, ADSK, CTXS, ANSS, SNPS, SYMC, TTWO, CDNS, CA. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Risks To The Bond Bear Market Two weeks ago we flagged that large net short positioning and elevated growth expectations left the Treasury market primed to benefit from any disturbance in the economic outlook. Since then the 10-year yield fell from a peak of 3.06% to 2.77%, before climbing back to 2.92%. With positioning still deeply net short and strong odds of a further decline in the economic surprise index (Chart 1), we continue to see an elevated risk that yields move lower on a 0-3 month horizon. But beyond that, less nimble investors should remain positioned for higher yields on a 6-12 month timeframe. The major risks in the global economy - Eurozone sovereign credit concerns and a strong dollar weighing on emerging market demand - are unlikely to put the Fed off its "gradual" pace of one rate hike per quarter unless they lead to a significant risk-off event in U.S. financial markets. Absent that sort of shock, the Fed will continue to lift rates "gradually" toward a neutral level near 3%, and eventually into restrictive territory. This rate hike path is consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%, well above current levels. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 45 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -122 bps. Value has improved considerably since the start of the year. The 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond is back up to its 29th percentile relative to history (Chart 2). Market-derived inflation expectations also ebbed during the past month, with the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates now at 2.09% and 2.12% respectively. This is below the target range of 2.3% to 2.5% that would trigger a downgrade to our corporate bond allocation. The combination of more attractive value and a somewhat more supportive monetary environment (as evidenced by the decline in TIPS breakeven rates) increases the odds of near-term corporate bond outperformance, and we would not be surprised to see spreads tighten during the next few months. However, the longer run outlook for corporates remains negative. First quarter data showed a 5.7% annualized decline in pre-tax corporate profits, dragging the year-over-year growth rate down to 5.8% (bottom panel). As employee compensation costs accelerate in the second half of the year, we expect that corporate profit growth will fall sustainably below the pace of corporate debt growth leading to rising leverage (panel 4). Strong oil prices have caused the energy sector to outperform the overall index considerably since the middle of last year. Now, many energy sub-sectors no longer appear cheap on our model. We take this opportunity to downgrade a few energy sub-sectors from overweight to neutral, and adjust some other sector recommendations as well (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 65 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 24 bps on the month, and currently sits at 356 bps. High-yield spreads are increasingly at odds with Moody's default rate projections. The latter call for the 12-month speculative grade default rate to fall to 1.5% by next April. The current 12-month trailing default rate is 3.7% (Chart 3). Using the Moody's default rate projection, and our own forecast for the recovery rate, we calculate the excess spread available in the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index to be 284 bps (after accounting for expected default losses). This is somewhat higher than the historical average of 248 bps. The current excess spread means that in an unchanged spread environment we would expect a High-Yield excess return (relative to duration-matched Treasuries) of +278 bps during the next 12 months. If the index spread were to tighten by 100 bps, we would expect an excess return of +675 bps. If the index spread were to widen by 100 bps we would expect an excess return of -120 bps (panel 3). If the excess spread were to simply revert to its historical average, then it would imply an excess High-Yield return of +427 bps. At the sector level, Moody's expects that most defaults during the next 12 months will come from the Media: Advertising, Printing & Publishing sector, followed closely by the Durable Consumer Goods and Retail sectors. Much of the projected improvement in the overall default rate results from a continued decline in Oil & Gas sector defaults compared to the past few years. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -27 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread widened 4 bps on the month, driven entirely by a 4 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The option-adjusted spread held flat at 32 bps. Value in the MBS sector is by no means exciting. The nominal spread on a conventional 30-year MBS is near its all-time low, the option-adjusted spread is close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 4) and MBS no longer look very attractive compared to investment grade corporate credit (panel 3). The most compelling reason to hold agency-backed MBS is that mortgage refinancings are likely to remain very low, owing both to rising interest rates and the large number of homeowners that have already refinanced. Depressed refi activity should keep MBS spreads near historically low levels (bottom panel), even as stresses emerge in other spread product sectors, notably corporate bonds. We recently presented a method for calculating expected total returns for all different bond sectors, only using assumptions for the number of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months and the expected change in spreads.1 Our results showed an expected total return of 2.9% for conventional 30-year MBS in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps and where spreads remain flat. The same scenario corresponds to 3.4% total return for the investment grade corporate index. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -40 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 158 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -242 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed by 37 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -56 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 22 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +37 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 2 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +2 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar weighed on Sovereign bond returns in May (Chart 5). While value in the sector improved somewhat as a result, it remains expensive relative to investment grade corporate credit (panel 2). With dollar strength likely to persist in the near-term, we remain underweight Sovereign bonds. Conversely, we reiterate our overweight recommendations on Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds. Those sectors still offer compelling valuations and are less sensitive to a strong U.S. dollar than the lower-rated Sovereign sector. Supranationals and Domestic Agency bonds are low risk but do not offer sufficient spread to warrant much attention. Better low-risk spread product opportunities are available in the Agency CMBS and Consumer ABS sectors. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +110 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined 2% on the month and, at 86%, it is very close to its post-crisis low (Chart 6). It remains somewhat elevated compared to the average level of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Technically, yield ratios have been supported by robust fund flows and subdued issuance (panels 2 & 3), while fundamentally our Municipal Health Monitor suggests that ratings upgrades will continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (not shown). The message from our Health Monitor is confirmed by the trend in state & local government net borrowing (bottom panel). First quarter data, released last week, showed a sizeable drop in net borrowing as state & local governments managed to grow revenues by $46 billion while growing expenditures by only $25 billion. This is consistent with governments working hard to repair their budgets, raising taxes and slowing spending growth, as we showed in a recent report.2 Given tight municipal valuations, we continue to see better opportunities in the corporate bond space than in municipal bonds. But we will look to upgrade munis at the expense of corporates as we approach the end of the credit cycle. Hopefully, from a more attractive entry point. Treasury Curve: Favor 7-Year Bullet Over 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in May. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 3 bps to end the month at 43 bps. The 5/30 slope held steady at 32 bps. The short-end of the Treasury curve is still not adequately priced for the Fed's likely pace of one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter. Such a pace translates to a level of 100 bps on our 12-month discounter, which currently sits at only 73 bps (Chart 7). Similarly, the long-end of the Treasury curve is not adequately priced for the likely trend in inflation. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is at only 2.09%, below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that is consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations. We anticipate that higher TIPS breakevens at the long end of the curve will be roughly offset by loftier rate expectations at the short end of the curve, leaving the slope of the Treasury curve close to current levels during the next few months. In a recent report we introduced a framework for identifying the most attractively valued butterfly trades across the entire yield curve.3 The results, shown in Table 4, identify the 7-year bullet over the 1-year/20-year barbell as the most attractively valued butterfly trade that is geared toward curve steepening. According to our model, that trade is priced for 56 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months (panel 4). That seems excessive given the low level of long-maturity TIPS breakevens. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of June 4, 2018) TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 65 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +95 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 10 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.09%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 13 bps and currently sits at 2.12%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.4 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. Recent trends show that inflation is steadily making progress toward the Fed's 2% goal. The 12-month rate of change in the core PCE deflator is back up to 1.8%, from 1.5% in February. However, the core PCE deflator has only increased by 0.15% in each of the past two months. Consistent monthly prints above 0.165% are required to reach the Fed's 2% target (Chart 8). We expect tight labor markets and strong pipeline pressures (panel 3) to drive inflation higher in the months ahead. Although, as we discussed last week, the risk of a significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target during the next 6-12 months is low.5 ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -3 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 1 bp on the month and now stands at 41 bps, 7 bps above its pre-crisis low. While consumer ABS offer reasonably attractive expected returns relative to other low-risk spread product (Agency CMBS, Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals), credit risk is slowly starting to build in the sector. The New York Fed's Household Debt and Credit report showed that the 90+ day credit card delinquency rate rose above 8% in Q1 for the first time since 2015. Meanwhile, the overall consumer credit delinquency rate continues to increase alongside a rising debt service ratio (Chart 9). On the supply side, banks reported tightening credit card lending standards for the fourth consecutive quarter in Q1, while auto loan lending standards were tightened for the eighth consecutive quarter. Periods of tightening lending standards tend to coincide with rising delinquencies and wider spreads (bottom panel). In a recent report we forecasted 12-month total returns for each U.S. fixed income sector using inputs only for the path of spreads and the number of Fed rate hikes during the next year. In a scenario where spreads remain flat and the Fed lifts rates four times next year, we would expect Aaa-rated credit card ABS to return 2.3% and Aaa-rated auto loan ABS to return 2.4%.6 Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 70 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean. Banks eased lending standard on nonfarm nonresidential loans in Q1 for the first time since 2015, and continued easing could signal lower delinquencies in the future (Chart 10). Easier lending standards could also support commercial real estate prices, which have decelerated recently and currently pose a risk for spreads (panel 3). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 48 bps. In a recent report we forecasted 12-month total returns for each U.S. fixed income sector using inputs only for the path of spreads and the number of Fed rate hikes during the next year. In a scenario where spreads remain flat and the Fed lifts rates four times next year, we would expect non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS to return 2.8% and Agency CMBS to return 2.6%.7 Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54%. The drop in the model's fair value compared to last month stems from a decline in the global PMI from 53.5 to 53.1, and a rise in dollar bullish sentiment from 60% to 67%. While global growth has undoubtedly lost momentum in recent months, we also suspect that our 2-factor model is finally breaking down. The 2-factor model does not contain a variable to capture the degree of resource utilization in the economy. As resource slack dissipates, inflationary pressures mount and the same pace of global growth should be associated with a higher Treasury yield. This means that as we approach the end of the cycle, the 2-factor model will start producing fair value readings that are consistently too low. We can attempt to correct for this by incorporating a measure of resource slack into our model, in this case the employment-to-population ratio. A model for the 10-year Treasury yield based on the employment-to-population ratio and the Global PMI produces a fair value of 3.29% (Chart 11). As we move further toward the end of the cycle, and away from the zero-lower bound on the fed funds rate, we expect the regression coefficients shown in the bottom three panels will revert to their pre-crisis levels and Treasury fair value will revert closer to the one shown in the second panel. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR", dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back and Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back and Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Year Of Living Dangerously The latter half of May was a wild wide for global financial markets, which had finally shown signs of healing after the VIX shock from earlier in the year. The cause this time was Italian political turmoil as the populist 5-Star Movement/League coalition attempted to form a government full of fiscal largesse, sprinkled with a hint of euroskepticism. Investors got spooked into thinking that a 2011-style euro "redenomination" (i.e. breakup) risk premium might once again need to be priced into Peripheral government bond yields. The rout in Italian BTPs felt like a classic sovereign debt crisis, emerging markets style. There were even reports of Italian banks providing no price quotes for Italian debt on electronic trading platforms - the 21st Century version of dealers "not answering their phones" during a crisis. All that was missing was an IMF delegation heading to Rome with checkbook in hand. The announcement late last week that the coalition would get another shot at forming a government, rather than throwing Italy into fresh elections that could turn into a referendum on euro membership, restored order to Italian financial markets. The meltdown in Italian yields was almost as rapid as the melt-up, with the 2-year BTP yield ending last week around 1%, almost two full percentage points lower than the peak in yields seen just a few days earlier, but still much higher than the sub-zero yields seen as recently as May 15th. We made a timely decision to cut our recommended stance on Italian debt to underweight two weeks and we are maintaining that call despite the respite from the political turmoil.1 (NOTE: we are putting out a joint Special Report next week with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy on June 13th, a day later than our usual Tuesday publishing slot, which will discuss the political outlook for Peripheral Europe and what it potentially means for their bond markets). Our more pessimistic view on Italian bonds was based on our assessment that Italian growth was slowing and would continue to do so. For a country like Italy with a large debt stock and structurally low growth, cyclical downturns always lead to increased worries about debt sustainability. Coming at a time when the ECB is looking to begin the long process of exiting its hyper-easy policies, the growth and monetary backdrop was also becoming more challenging for Italian government bonds. The same thing can be said for the rest of the world. The rapid coordinated acceleration in global growth seen in 2017 has clearly peaked, as has the pace of central bank asset purchases that helped support that recovery through low bond yields (Chart of the Week). The growth convergence has turned into a divergence between growth in the still-strong U.S. and most other major economies. This poses a new threat to financial markets - a rising U.S. dollar - which, combined with some cooling of global growth, is already triggering underperformance of emerging market assets. So after the tumultuous market price action of the past few weeks, we think the most critical potential impact on the direction of bond yields, and our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, can be boiled down to two big questions. Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? NO. The U.S. economy continues to exhibit impressive resilience of late, even as the rest of the world has seen some softening in growth. The Payrolls report for May released last Friday showed another sturdy gain of 223,000 jobs, with upward revisions of 15,000 to the prior two months. This pushed the unemployment rate to 3.8% - the lowest level since April 2000 - while boosting the annual growth in Average Hourly Earnings up to 2.7% (Chart 2). The overall employment/population ratio also inched higher. Both wage growth and the employment/population ratio are well below the peaks seen in the past two business cycles, even with similarly low levels of unemployment. During those cycles, the Fed was forced to raise the funds rate to restrictive levels to cool growth to rein in overshooting inflation. The real fed funds rate was consistently above equilibrium measures like the Williams-Laubach "r-star" (bottom panel), which eventually crimped growth and led to a recession in both cases. In the current cycle, wage inflation is struggling to reach 3% and core PCE inflation at 1.8% has still not returned back to the Fed's 2% target. There is no need for the Fed to push harder on the brakes by raising rates faster than inflation is accelerating and pushing the real rate above r-star. If a growing economy continues to absorb labor market slack, however, the Fed could be chasing a higher level of r-star to prevent inflation from continuing to accelerate (bottom panel). Looking ahead, it does look like the Fed will continue to play a bit of catch-up to an accelerating U.S. economy. Leading economic indicators (both from the OECD and Conference Board), as well as our forward-looking models for employment and capital spending, all point to faster growth in the next couple of quarters (Chart 3). This will only support the case for the Fed to continue with its current rate "measured" pace of one rate hike per quarter over the next year. Chart 2Labor Market Tightening##BR##Leads To Fed Tightening Chart 3U.S. Growth Still##BR##In Good Shape With the U.S. dollar now reconnecting to the widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other major economies, there is a risk that the implied tightening of monetary conditions from a higher greenback could limit the need for the Fed to continue with its rate hike plans. Yet at the moment, the trade-weighted dollar is still not accelerating on a year-over-year basis, in contrast to the +15% appreciation seen during the 2014/15 dollar bull run (Chart 4). At the peak of that episode, net exports were a drag on real GDP growth of -1% and headline CPI inflation hit 0% (aided by collapsing oil prices). While an appreciation of that magnitude is unlikely, it would still take a much larger increase in the dollar to meaningfully dent growth in a way that could cause the Fed to pause on the rate hikes. A bigger dollar rally could also raise financial instability, primarily by hitting emerging markets where currency weakness versus the dollar would trigger tighter monetary policy and slower growth. That is certainly a risk for the Fed to consider. Yet given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy today, the Fed would only react to any turmoil in emerging markets if it meaningfully impacted U.S. financial markets, but not before then. While the Fed is still likely to continue on its rate hike path over the rest of 2018, the market has largely discounted that outcome - even after the late May decline in U.S. interest rates on the back of Italy-fueled risk-aversion (Chart 5). The market is still not completely priced to the Fed's interest rate projections over the next year, however, which does raise the potential for a return to the +3% level on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield that was seen before the Italy crisis flared up. However, our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, continue to point out the risks to a continued near-term period of declining (or at least, consolidating) Treasury yields given persistent short positioning in the Treasury market at a time of slowing data surprises (Chart 6). We remain bearish on Treasuries over a strategic horizon, however. Chart 4USD Rally Not Yet##BR##Enough To Impact The U.S. Chart 5Market Still Priced Close To##BR##The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Chart 6UST Yields Likely To##BR##Consolidate In The Near-Term Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? PROBABLY NOT. The latest volatility in European financial markets stemming from the Italy crisis came at a difficult time for the ECB. The central bank has been incrementally preparing the market for an eventual tapering of its asset purchase program after it expires in September. Yet the slowdown in euro area growth in the first quarter of the year, amid sluggish readings on inflation, has raised some doubt that the ECB would even be able to announce any sort of withdrawal of monetary stimulus. Chart 7Market Buying Into The ECB's##BR##'Low Rates For Longer' Message It is now a consensus expectation that the ECB will taper its net new asset purchases fully to zero by the end of 2018. What has moved, however, is the market's expectation for the timing of the first rate hike by the ECB. That has now been pushed out to April 2020 after the Italy turbulence (Chart 7). The ECB has been consistently signaling to the markets that it views the two decisions - tapering and rate hikes - as separate choices to make. In other words, tapering does not mean that rate hikes will come soon afterward. So far, the market appears to be listening to the ECB's signals by moving out the timing of any rate hike to nearly two full years from today. Given the magnitude of the slide in euro area growth seen in the first few months of 2018 (2nd panel), that may be taken as a sign that the market thinks the slump can continue. This also is consistent with the market believing the ECB's views on seeing through any impact on euro area inflation from changes in oil prices and the euro. The annual growth of the Brent oil price, in euro terms, has climbed to nearly 50% over the past few months (3rd panel). There has always been a strong correlation of that growth rate to overall headline euro area inflation, as evidenced by the early read on May CPI inflation released last week that came in at 1.9%. Yet core CPI inflation in the euro area is still only 1.1%, well below the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2%. Market-based inflation expectations are still below the level as well, with the 5-year euro CPI swap, 5-years forward now sitting at 1.7%. So the market pricing is consistent with an ECB that will be very slow to begin raising interest rates. That would also be consistent with the behavior of the ECB when it comes to its past tightening cycles. In Chart 8, we show diffusion indices at a country level for euro area industrial production growth (as a proxy for economic growth), headline inflation and core inflation. These show the percentage of all euro area countries that are seeing accelerating growth or inflation versus those countries seeing slowing growth and inflation. A higher diffusion index means that any acceleration in growth or inflation is broad-based, and vice versa. Chart 8ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns As can be seen in the chart, the ECB's past tightening cycles since the beginning of the euro in 1998 have all occurred when the diffusion indices for inflation have risen into the 60-80% zone. In other words, the ECB is more aggressive on lifting rates when a large majority of countries in the euro zone is seeing accelerating inflation. During those same tightening cycles, however, the diffusion indices for growth have been decelerating, suggesting less broad-based economic strength. The implication from this analysis is that the ECB cares more about inflation than growth when making its monetary policy decisions. The ECB's reputation for sometimes making overly hawkish policy mistakes, like in 2010-11, is well deserved. Looking ahead, the current readings on the diffusion indices for both growth and, more importantly, inflation are all quite depressed. This suggest that the slowing growth seen in the overall euro area data so far in 2018 has been broad-based, while the increase in the overall euro area inflation data has not been broad-based. This can be seen when looking at the some of the individual country data for the major core euro area countries (Chart 9) and Peripheral countries (Chart 10). For example, Netherlands and Portugal stand out as having inflation trends that are much weaker than the other countries. Yet the more divergent trends in euro area inflation does not mean that the ECB will decide to defer any decision to taper, however. The ECB will have to make that decision at either the June or July meetings, with the current program set to end in September. Absent a significant drop in euro area inflation, the ECB is still likely to signal a full taper by the end of the year. Yet even if they did extend the current program into 2019, at the same pace of 30 billion euros per month, this would likely not have a meaningful impact on the level of euro area bond yields. We have found that is the growth rate of those purchases, and not the absolute level, that is most correlated to the level of euro area bond yields (Chart 11). Even if the current program were to be extended to March 2019, to be followed by a tapering of net purchases to zero by September 2019, then the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet (driven by the asset purchases) would remain mired below 10% - a far slower pace compared to the peak years of ECB bond buying. Chart 9Growth Convergence,##BR##Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Chart 10And In##BR##Peripheral Europe Chart 11Extending ECB Bond Purchases##BR##Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact In other words, an extension of the asset purchases would not drive euro area bond yields any lower, and would entail operational constraints on country sizes, etc. The ECB will have better success at driving down yields by keeping policy rates lower for longer, as it is signaling it will do. Bottom Line: The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of May 31, 2018. No significant changes in the model's allocation this month, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 111 bps in May, largely driven by Level 2 model which underperformed by 300 bps. The model's largest overweight, Italy, turned out to be the worst performer in May as a result of Italian politics, an event that is difficult for a quantitative model to capture. Level 1 model outperformed by only 7 bps in May. Consequently, since going live, the outperformance of the Level 2 model, which allocates funds among 11 non-U.S. countries, has reduced to 52 bps, while the overall model has performed in line with the MSCI World benchmark. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 31, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The largest shift was a move from underweight to overweight in the materials sector, driven by improving momentum. On the other hand, the overweight in energy was reduced by 1.7 percentage points. The aggregate model now has a small overweight on cyclicals versus defensives, although this is entirely in commodity-related cyclicals. The only other overweight sector is utilities, which saw a small decrease in its weight in the model. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A virtuous software capex upcycle will continue to bolster industry sales/profits in the coming months. We reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the S&P software index. Depressed relative valuations signal that the weak airline profit margin backdrop is baked in the cake. Rising load factors and the possibility of an easing in jet fuel prices compel us to put this transportation sub-index on our upgrade watch list. Recent Changes Put the S&P Airlines Index on upgrade alert. Table 1 Feature Stocks took it on the chin early last week as geopolitical risks resurfaced in a big way, but managed to bounce smartly and end the week on a high note. Not only did Trump slap new tariffs reigniting trade war fears, but Italian political instability rocked global bond and stock markets. While this mini 'risk-off' phase has rattled investors, the key question hanging over markets is: will the current global growth soft patch prove transitory or morph into a severe global growth deceleration? We side with the former. While it is too early to call the end of the global growth lull, there are high odds that the U.S. will lift the world out of its year-to-date mini-slump in the back half of the year. The third panel of Chart 1 shows that the IHS Markit U.S. manufacturing PMI has been steeply diverging from the J.P. Morgan-calculated global manufacturing PMI. The latter has ticked up recently, and given recent U.S. economic greenshoots and America's heavy weighting in global output, it should pull global growth higher. Chart 1Too Soon To Bail Chart 2Monitor The Greenback's Impact On Profits Importantly, this leading U.S. economic growth indicator is also signaling that SPX momentum will resume its ascent in the coming months, a message corroborated by the latest ISM manufacturing survey print (second panel, Chart 1). What could push our still constructive cyclical 9-12 month equity view offside is a surge in the U.S. dollar. The greenback's trough coincided with last year's peak in global growth (bottom panel Chart 1), and further dollar appreciation - resulting from either stress in emerging markets or a further flare-up of Eurozone breakup risk - would necessitate downward revisions to calendar 2019 sell-side earnings forecasts (Chart 2). We are closely monitoring Eurozone geopolitical risks, and are also awaiting the ECB's response. If persistent turmoil causes the ECB to stay easier for longer than the market expects, then the euro will come under downward pressure against the dollar, especially if the Fed continues to hike as we expect. Last week alone BCA's months-to-hike gauge for the ECB jumped by five months, implying the first hike moved to mid-year 2020 (second panel, Chart 3). We recently showed the U.S. tech sector's hefty foreign sales exposure of roughly 60% of total revenues, greater than for any other GICS1 sector by a wide margin (please refer to Chart 8 from the April 9, 2018 Weekly Report titled "Buying Opportunity?"). As such the technology sector's profits serve as a great leading indicator of any U.S. dollar appreciation related blues. Up to now, tech net EPS revisions have not been sniffing out any currency related earnings trouble that could infiltrate overall SPX EPS (U.S. trade-weighted dollar shown inverted, third panel, Chart 4). Similarly, relative tech sector stock momentum and our tech sector EPS growth model are not waving any yellow flags (Chart 4). Chart 3Steadfast ##br##SPX Chart 4Tech Stocks Will Be The First To Sniff ##br##Out U.S. Dollar Profit Woes Netting it all out, there are high odds that the U.S. will lead global growth higher in the coming quarters and result in a recoupling higher of global growth, assuming the greenback stops appreciating. This would support low double digit calendar 2019 SPX profit growth. Under such a macro backdrop, it still pays to maintain a cyclicals over defensives portfolio bent. This week we are revisiting one tech sector high-conviction overweight and putting a transport sub-index on upgrade watch. Stick With Software Stocks The S&P software index is on the cusp of breaching the 2000 relative performance all-time peak, and we reiterate the high-conviction overweight status of this key tech sub-index, that is up over 11% versus the SPX since the late-November inception.1 Although this may appear exuberant, from a longer-term perspective, relative share prices only recently reclaimed the upward sloping historical time trend mean (top panel, Chart 5). The implication is that more gains are in store prior to the end of the business cycle. BCA's synchronized global capex upcycle theme is the fundamental driver of our sanguine software industry view. In the aftermath of the dotcom bust, tech investment in general and software in particular, went into hibernation for a whole decade. Currently, software investment is outpacing overall capital outlays (middle panel, Chart 5). These software capex market share gains on the back of a growing overall capex pie bode well for relative profit growth. Animal spirits remain upbeat with both consumer and most importantly CEO confidence probing multi-year highs. Tack on the still buoyant message from our capex indicator and software spending has more room to grow (second & third panels, Chart 6). In addition, the government sector may also increase spending on IT/software services on the back of easing fiscal policy and beefing up on cybersecurity (Chart 7). Chart 5Buy The Breakout Chart 6Even Uncle Sam Is Buying Software Chart 7Margin Expansion Phase Has Legs While our S&P software EPS growth model corroborates this encouraging news (bottom panel, Chart 5), sell side analysts do not share our optimism. In fact, software profits are forecast to trail the broad market by 500bps, a rather low hurdle. On the operating front, sales are accelerating at a time when labor costs remain contained. Importantly, software prices are on the verge of exiting deflation, underscoring that software demand is robust. Moreover, the secular advance in cloud computing and SaaS represent a long-term positive demand backdrop. The upshot is that the mini margin expansion phase in place since early-2016 has more legs (Chart 7). Meanwhile, the S&P software index has a pristine balance sheet with virtually no net debt, a high interest coverage ratio and galloping higher free cash flow (Chart 8). Unsurprisingly, this cash rich tech subsector has also been in the middle of an M&A frenzy. This supply reduction is not only bullish for industry pricing power, and thus profit growth, but it has also led to hefty M&A premia and a significant valuation rerating (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 8Pristine Balance Sheet Chart 9Software Will Grow Into Pricey Valuations If our virtuous capex upcycle thesis further bolsters software sales/profits in the coming months, then more gains are in store for the S&P software index that will likely grow into its pricey valuations. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight status in the S&P software index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, INTU, EA, RHT, ADSK, CTXS, ANSS, SNPS, SYMC, TTWO, CDNS, CA. Could Jet Fuel Be The Tailwind Airlines Need? It is a well-established rule that where jet fuel prices go, airline stock prices will go the opposite direction. Thus it is no surprise that the most recent peak in the S&P airlines index coincided with the most recent trough in jet fuel prices in early 2017; the former has since fallen steeply as the latter has soared (top panel, Chart 10). This relationship has grown more acute as the industry, having been burned when fuel prices collapsed in 2014, has all but abandoned fuel hedging. The timing for rising jet fuel prices could scarcely be less opportune; historically, airlines have been able to pass through rising fuel costs. Now, in the midst of an industry price war, pricing power and fuel costs are diverging (second panel, Chart 10). The impact is apparent on industry margins, which have been in decline for nearly two years and more pain likely lies ahead (second panel, Chart 11). The head of airline industry group International Air Transport Association (IATA), recently noted that rising oil prices would significantly bite into airline profitability next year; IATA is widely expected to lower its industry benchmark profit forecast this week. Chart 10Mind The Gap Chart 11Acute Margin Trouble... The source of industry conflict has been an uptick in capacity growth. Airlines are adding capacity faster than the economy is growing (third and fourth panels, Chart 11) and the only relief valve to preserve market share is to cut prices. In this context, it is difficult to understand analysts' 20%+ EPS growth forecast for next year, significantly outpacing the S&P 500 (bottom panel, Chart 11). However, the news is not all bad. Despite the competitive headwinds, the industry has been successful at moving unit revenues higher and airlines have been doing so at an aggressive pace in 2018 (second panel, Chart 12). Further, industry load factors (in essence, the percentage of filled seats) are near their highest level ever, indicating capacity growth is being met with lower price-induced demand growth (bottom panel, Chart 12). Rising load factors are typically a precursor to price (and profit) increases. Investors appear to have capitulated. Airlines trade at roughly half the market multiple on an EV/EBITDA basis and a substantial discount on a price/book basis (second & third panels, Chart 13). From a valuation perspective, airlines look set to take off. Chart 12...But Demand is Firming... Chart 13...And Most Bad News Is Likely Priced In Easing oil prices are a likely catalyst for a significant rerating in depressed relative valuations. Fuel hedges no longer play a significant role in earnings and lower fuel costs would translate directly to the bottom line. As a reminder, nearly all major players reiterated their pledge to avoid kerosene hedging earlier this year. Adding it up, we think downside risks to airlines have abated considerably and are well reflected in beaten down valuations. We are therefore compelled to add this transportation sub-index to our upgrade watch list. If there is any letup in jet fuel prices, we would not hesitate to crystallize relative profits north of 21% since our underweight inception. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P airlines index for now, but put in on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps