Developed Countries

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

Highlights Duration: Fed Governor Lael Brainard stated last week that many of the headwinds that held back growth between 2014 and 2016 have faded. This acknowledgement from the most dovish Fed Governor opens the door for a more aggressive pace of Fed rate hikes, and gives the green light to the cyclical bond bear market. Labor Market: The economy continues to add jobs at a rapid pace, but there is some debate about whether the unemployment rate accurately reflects the amount of slack in the labor market. We find that even using the broadest measures of labor market slack, we should expect to see wages accelerate in the coming months. Credit Cycle: Corporate profit growth remains strong for now, but rising unit labor costs will cause profit growth to sustainably fall below debt growth later this year. This will lead to rising corporate leverage and wider bond spreads. We stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once our inflation targets are met. Feature Chart 1Fed's Current Projections Are Priced In The cyclical bond bear market is at a critical juncture. The yield curve has now largely priced-in the Fed's median fed funds rate projections (Chart 1), and this raises the possibility that the bear market could stall unless the Fed starts to signal a more aggressive path for hikes. With that in mind, last week's speech by Fed Governor Lael Brainard caught our attention.1 As the most dovish member of the Board of Governors, Governor Brainard's speeches are important bellwethers of inflection points in monetary policy. This is particularly true when the speeches convey a more hawkish tone, as was the case last week. Governor Brainard's shift in tone signals that the Fed is poised to adopt a somewhat more aggressive tightening bias. This will likely lead to upward revisions to its interest rate projections and give the green light for the cyclical bond bear market to continue. Brainard On Growth Comparatively weak economic growth outside of the U.S. has been a perennial concern for Governor Brainard, and indeed a key theme in this publication.2 But last week she acknowledged that this dynamic has shifted: Today many economies around the world are experiencing synchronized growth, in contrast to the 2015-16 period when important foreign economies experienced adverse shocks and anemic demand. [...] The upward revisions to the foreign economic outlook are also pulling forward expectations of monetary policy tightening abroad and contributing to an appreciation of foreign currencies and increases in U.S. import prices. By contrast, foreign currencies weakened in the earlier period, pushing the dollar higher and U.S. import prices lower. Chart 2 shows the dramatic shift that has occurred since mid-2016. The Global Manufacturing PMI has soared, and all but one of the 36 countries with available data now have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. As a consequence, the U.S. dollar has depreciated and import prices have surged. A more broadly-based global recovery is bearish for U.S. bonds. With less drag from a stronger U.S. dollar, interest rates must rise further to achieve the same amount of monetary tightening. Although we would still characterize the global economic recovery as highly synchronized, we recently flagged some preliminary signals that suggest the breadth of global growth might be deteriorating.3 Specifically, we observe that leading indicators of Chinese economic activity have rolled over, and the outperformance of emerging market currency carry trades has moderated (Chart 2, bottom panel). We will closely monitor both of these indicators during the next few months to see if the weakness persists, or if it starts to bleed into broader global growth aggregates. While the more optimistic assessment of global growth was the starkest change between last week's speech and Governor Brainard's earlier missives, she also noted reasons for optimism on the domestic front. Nonresidential investment is hooking up, and leading indicators point to further gains (Chart 3, panel 1). Financial conditions remain accommodative despite persistent Fed tightening. This differs from the mid-2014 to mid-2016 period when financial conditions tightened even though monetary policy was more accommodative (Chart 3, panel 2). Most importantly, the economy is poised to receive a huge dose of fiscal stimulus during the next two years in the form of a $1.5 trillion tax cut and a $300 billion increase in federal spending (Chart 3, bottom panel). Even our simple tracking estimate for U.S. GDP suggests that growth is shifting into a higher gear. Aggregate hours worked are growing at an annual pace of 2.2%. When coupled with a conservative estimate of 0.8% for productivity growth - the average since 2012 - that translates into real GDP growth of 3%, well above the average pace of 2.2% we've seen since 2010 (Chart 4). With growth that strong we will almost certainly see further tightening of the labor market in 2018. Chart 2Synchronized Growth Is Bond Bearish Chart 3Domestic Tailwinds Chart 4U.S. GDP Tracking At 3% Brainard On The Labor Market A key question for policymakers is how much slack remains in the labor market. If the Fed views the labor market as at full employment, then it necessarily expects inflation to accelerate and should be prepared to tighten policy. Conversely, an economy with significant labor market slack is not expected to generate inflation. Officially, the Fed's most recent Monetary Policy Report to Congress describes the labor market as "near or a little beyond full employment",4 and in last week's speech Governor Brainard gave an excellent summary of the risks surrounding that assessment. First, she noted that "if the unemployment rate were to continue to fall in the coming year at the same pace as in the past couple of years, it would reach levels not seen since the late 1960s" (Chart 5). With growth set to accelerate, we view this as a very likely outcome. In fact, we calculate that, assuming a flat labor force participation rate, the U.S. economy needs to add only 123k jobs each month to keep the unemployment rate under downward pressure. The economy has added an average of 190k jobs per month during the past year, and added a shocking 313k in February (Chart 6). We anticipate it will be some time before job growth falls below the 123k threshold. Chart 5How Much Slack? Chart 6Employment Growth However, it is possible that the unemployment rate is masking some hidden slack in the labor market. Governor Brainard noted that "the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers remains more than 1 percentage point below its pre-crisis level" (Chart 5, panel 2). "If substantially more workers could be drawn into the labor force, it would be possible for the labor market to firm notably further without generating imbalances." Chart 7Wage Growth Set To Accelerate In other words, if the labor force participation rate increases, then the unemployment rate could level-off even if job growth remains robust. This would keep a lid on inflation for longer than would be the case otherwise. In our view it will be very difficult for the participation rate to rise meaningfully on a cyclical horizon. As Governor Brainard noted in her speech: "declining labor force participation among prime-age workers predates the crisis" (Chart 5, bottom panel). Added to that, now nine years into the economic recovery, it is questionable whether workers that have been out of the labor force for so long are even able to be drawn back in. Our sense is that the unemployment rate will decline further in the coming months, and it will not be long before that translates into upward pressure on wages. It is important to note that whether we use the unemployment rate or the prime-age employment-to-population ratio as our preferred measure of labor market slack, we are very close to levels that have coincided with exponential wage gains in past cycles (Chart 7). Brainard On Inflation As discussed in our report from two weeks ago, our view is that the headwinds that had been working against inflation are set to fade this year.5 While Governor Brainard agrees that "transitory factors no doubt played a role in last year's step-down in core PCE inflation," she remains concerned that inflation's underlying trend may have softened. Brainard's concern relates to various measures of inflation expectations that are still below levels that prevailed prior to the financial crisis (Chart 8). Without expectations adjusting higher it is doubtful whether inflation can sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. We share this concern, but note that the cost of inflation protection priced into bond yields has surged in recent months. Survey measures take longer to adjust than market prices, but we anticipate that these measures will also rise as inflation recovers in 2018. The further that measures of inflation expectations (both market-based and survey-based) recover, the more Brainard's concerns about a decline in inflation's underlying trend will fade into the background. Bottom Line: Governor Brainard correctly observed that many of the headwinds that held back growth between 2014 and 2016 have faded. This acknowledgement from the most dovish Fed Governor opens the door for a more aggressive pace of Fed rate hikes, and gives the green light to the cyclical bond bear market. How Sustainable Is Corporate Profit Growth? We've been growing more cautious on the outlook for credit spreads during the past few months, principally because the shift toward a less accommodative monetary policy removes an important support for the corporate bond trade. We view the Fed as getting even more hawkish once inflation expectations are re-anchored around pre-crisis levels, and as such we stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 8, panels 1 & 2). At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 2.12% and the 5-year/5-year forward rate was 2.14%. But this is only one piece of the puzzle. For a true bear market in corporate bonds to set in we also need to see rising leverage and mounting defaults. At least for now that is not happening. Our measure of gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - calculated as total debt divided by EBITD - has flattened off during the past year, and the 12-month trailing default rate is in a steady decline (Chart 9). Chart 8The Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations Chart 9Wider Spreads Need Rising Leverage Chart 9 shows that periods of sustained corporate spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage. Or put differently, for corporate spreads to widen we need to see corporate debt growth consistently exceed profit growth (Chart 9, panel 2). At first blush it is not obvious that profit growth will weaken any time soon. Leading indicators such as total business sales less inventories and the ISM manufacturing index point to a favorable profit outlook (Chart 10). Profit growth should also continue to benefit from dollar weakness for at least the next few months (Chart 10, bottom panel). But there is one leading profit indicator that is starting to flash red. A simple profit margin proxy created by taking the difference between the nonfarm business sector's implicit price deflator and its unit labor costs turned negative in Q4. Chart 11 shows that, although this indicator can be volatile, sustained negative readings almost always foreshadow periods of falling profit growth and corporate bond underperformance. Chart 10Rising Leverage Needs Weaker Profit Growth Chart 11Watch Unit Labor Costs In 2018 The Q4 weakness was driven by a big jump in unit labor costs, and with labor markets as tight as they are this is certainly a trend we see continuing. Unless corporate selling prices can keep pace we will see profit growth sustainably fall below debt growth this year, and this will lead to corporate bond underperformance. Bottom Line: Corporate profit growth remains strong for now, but rising unit labor costs will cause profit growth to sustainably fall below debt growth later this year. This will lead to rising corporate leverage and wider bond spreads. We stand ready to reduce exposure to corporate bonds once our inflation targets are met. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180306a.htm 2 Please see Theme 3 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017" dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20180223_mprfullreport.pdf 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

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

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

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

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

My colleagues Caroline Miller, Peter Berezin and I broadcasted a webcast this past Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent market-relevant fiscal and trade policy pronouncements. If you haven't already, I hope you find time to listen in. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights On the one hand, because the Federal Reserve targets inflation and because tariffs are inflationary, when the economy is at full employment, tariffs could lift the USD. On the other hand, investors have been conditioned to the reality that tariffs are a tool used by previous U.S. administrations to weaken the dollar. Also, tariffs bring back memories of the 1970s stagflation, a very dollar-bearish period. Tariffs also raise the risk that the USD share of global reserves declines. Even if protectionist rhetoric raises the probability of a global trade war, we do not believe the set of tariffs proposed now are the beginning of such a catastrophe. However, we remain worried that Sino-American tensions will only escalate going forward. If a global trade war were to unfold, the USD would likely suffer down the road, and EUR/JPY could get hit. The short-term impact of Sino-U.S. trade tensions should be more limited; however, the AUD would suffer from this conflict. We are closing our short CAD/NOK trade at a 4.55% profit this week. Feature Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that America would be slapping tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports. True to himself, he then proceeded to tweet that "trade wars are good and easy to win." In response to this bravado, investors began to worry about the growing risk of a global trade war - a replay of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s - and the USD weakened anew. This obviously begs the following questions: Are tariffs and trade wars good or bad for the dollar? What is the real likelihood of a trade war engulfing the globe? What signposts should investors monitor to judge whether the world economy is regressing to a 1930s-like nationalist period? We think the current set of proposed tariffs will have a limited impact on the USD, especially as the Fed seems increasingly dead set on tightening policy. However, we need to monitor how NAFTA negotiations evolve. A breakdown in NAFTA negotiations would indicate a rising threat of a global trade war, which down the road would threaten the reserve currency status of the USD. Intellectual property trade disputes with China are another barometer to follow, as Sino-American tensions could intensify markedly. An escalation of these tensions would likely weigh on EM and commodity currencies. The SEK could suffer as well. How Could Tariffs Help The USD? There are two competing hypotheses out there, with diametrically opposed conclusions for investors. One school of thought argues that tariffs could help the dollar; another, that it would hurt the dollar. Chart I-1No Slack In The U.S. Let's begin by exploring how tariffs could help the dollar. Last July, the IMF published an in-depth study of the dynamics that may be associated with tariffs being implemented by any economy.1 Based on the assumption of the imposition of a 10% import tariff across the board, various interesting conclusions emerged. The imposition of imports tariffs should have an inflationary impact on the economy. The first stage is a one-off adjustment with a transitory impact, reflecting the sudden upward adjustment in the price of imports proportional but not equal to the size of the tariffs. If, however, the economy is at full employment, the higher price of foreign-sourced goods incentivizes repatriation of some production onshore. This repatriation brushes up against capacity constraints in the economy's production function, lifting prices over many quarters. The U.S. economy is at full employment, with aggregate capacity utilization at its tightest level since 2005. The U.S. could experience a second-round inflationary effect if broader tariffs are implemented (Chart I-1). The most important conclusion of the IMF study relates to interest rates. Tariffs put upward pressure on domestic nominal interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart I-2A). This is because the central bank presumably wants to counter the inflationary impact of the tariffs. On the other hand, because import tariffs hurt foreigners' exports, the tariffs hurt foreign economies. This makes the foreign output gap more negative than it would otherwise be. In this context, U.S. interest rate differentials rise relative to trading partners (Chart I-2B). Chart I-2A & BAt Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates The IMF also explores the impact of a global trade war, where tit-for-tat behavior proliferates globally. Unsurprisingly, the IMF's models show that global output declines by roughly 1% over five years after the implementation of the original tariffs (Chart I-3A), and global trade contracts by roughly 2% of GDP over the same time frame (Chart I-3B). Chart I-3A & BGlobal Trade Wars Hurt Trade And Growth The U.S. is a relatively closed economy, as exports constitute approximately 8% of GDP compared to 20% of GDP in major European economies and 16% of GDP in China and Japan (Chart I-4). Hence, the U.S. economy is likely to experience a smaller contraction of output in a global trade war than other major economies. Moreover, as the Global Financial Crisis illustrated, when global trade contracts, economies with deep current account deficits tend to experience an improvement in their trade balance. This means that for an economy like the U.S., which sports a current account deficit of 2.3% of GDP, contracting global trade will shrink the current account deficit, further mitigating some of the negative impact on GDP. Thus, the U.S. output gap would deteriorate less than in countries sporting large current account surpluses like Germany, Japan, or China. U.S. interest rates would rise relative to the rest of the world, causing the dollar to appreciate. Bottom Line: On the one hand, when an economy is at full employment, the imposition of tariffs can generate systemic inflationary pressures. The response of an inflation-targeting central bank would be to tighten policy. This describes the U.S. today, suggesting the USD could rise if tariffs are imposed. Moreover, if a full-fledged trade war ensues, the U.S. economy's lower sensitivity to global trade would limit the negative impact relative to its more globally exposed trading partners - another plus for the dollar. Chart I-4U.S. Growth Is Less Exposed To Global Growth Chart I-5History: Trade Spats Have Hurt The Dollar But The Dollar Is Falling, So What Gives? The analysis above is theoretical, and flies in the face of the real world, where the dollar has been weakening since President Trump announced his intention to impose tariffs. This analysis relies on two words: Ceteris Paribus, and the world is anything but Ceteris Paribus. Investors are having qualms about the dollar because of the history of tariffs. As Marko Papic highlighted in a recent special client note in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, tariffs and the threat of tariffs are often used by U.S. administrations to force an upward adjustment in the currencies of U.S. trading partners.2 This worked very well in 1971, when Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on all imported goods. The 1985 Plaza Accord materialized amid threats of large tariffs by the U.S. on German and Japanese exports, which made those two nations much more willing to see their exchange rates appreciate sharply against the USD. Even more recent trade spats such as the U.S.-Japan tensions in the early 1990s or President George W. Bush's steel tariffs in 2002 were also associated with a weakening dollar (Chart I-5). History has another lesson in store: Investors fear a return of stagflation. The U.S. has a populist president, and fiscal policy is becoming expansionary despite the economy being at full employment - an environment very reminiscent of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Chart I-6). Tariffs too are inflationary and hurt output. Finally, while it remains to be seen if Fed Chairman Jerome Powell will be as malleable to the White House's demands as then Fed Chairman Arthur Burns was, Powell is still perceived as an untested Trump appointee. These apparent similarities with the 1970s are prompting investors to sell the USD. Stagflation was unkind to the dollar as the DXY fell 29% from the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement to December 1979. Chart I-6Like the Late 1960's: Full Employment And Fiscal Stimulus A theoretical concept is also frightening investors: Will Trump's policies prompt a decline of the dollar's share of global reserves? The U.S. dollar is the premier global reserve currency, accounting for 63% of allocated FX reserves. However, a paper from Harvard University highlighted that the dollar is in fact over-represented in global reserves based on trade flows.3 One of the key factors explaining the large role of the USD in global reserves is that many economies have dollarized financial systems, where the greenback represents a large share of their banks' liabilities. Since many of these economies have little access to direct financing from the Fed, as a matter of precaution these nations keep many more dollars in their FX reserve pools for rainy days. If the dollar increasingly becomes a weapon used by the White House, and the U.S. also wants to shrink its current account deficit through aggressively nationalist trade policy, the supply of dollars to the global financial system will decrease and become more volatile. This will make dollar-based financial systems around the world more unstable and dangerous. In the near-term, this uncertainty may support the dollar, but over the longer-run, growing trade restrictions by the U.S. could spur countries to abandon the USD as a source of financing. If they stop financing themselves in USD, they can diversify their FX reserves away from the dollar and mitigate geopolitical risk emanating from the U.S. Chart I-7Is The Exorbitant Privilege Ending? Why is this a problem? As Chart I-7 illustrates, the U.S. has a negative net international investment position of -40% of GDP - i.e. it owes much more money to foreigners than it is owed by foreigners. Yet, the U.S. still manages to eke out a positive primary international income balance of 1.1% of GDP. This is because foreigners are willing to hold dollar bonds at derisively low rates for such an indebted nation. Foreigners are willing to do so because they want to hold dollars as reserves. If the global demand for USD reserves declines, financing the U.S.'s current account deficit and negative net international investment position will become more expensive. The simplest and fastest way to make dollar assets more attractive for foreigners is to weaken the USD today, which lifts expected returns on U.S. assets down the road. Bottom Line: On the other hand, the dollar has responded negatively to the suggestion of new tariffs. The world is not a ceteris paribus environment, and investors are worried that tariffs could plunge the U.S. economy back into 1970's style stagflation. Moreover, the weaponization of the USD decreases its attractiveness as the premier reserve currency of the world, potentially endangering a crucial source of demand for the USD. So What? Both sides of the debate make some valid arguments. But as was the case with the twin deficit, the outlook for the dollar will hinge on the Fed's response to the impact of tariffs on inflation.4 If the Fed ignores the inflationary impact of the repatriation of production onshore, then, investors are correct to replay the stagflation story of the 1970s. However, the Fed doesn't seem to be so inclined. Chairman Powell has acknowledged accelerating U.S. economic momentum, and even perennial doves like Lael Brainard have highlighted the positive impact of stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and fiscal stimulus on the U.S. growth outlook. The Fed seems ready to hike and does not want to fall behind the curve. There is another dimension to the question. What is the likelihood that Trump tariffs are the opening salvo of a protracted trade war? To be clear, tariffs on steel and aluminum only affect 1% of U.S. imports, or 0.15% of GDP. Tariffs will only have a macro impact if they are broadened or if widespread retaliation ensues. So far, these new tariffs barely affect the long-term trend of declining obstruction to trade, and they remain a far cry from the levels hit in the 1930s (Chart I-8). So, while the probability of a global trade war has risen, it is not a base-case scenario. Instead, it remains to be seen if Trump will become much more aggressive on the trade front. Canada - the top exporter of both steel and aluminum to the U.S. - would have been the country most negatively affected by these tariffs (Table I-1). However, key allies like Canada, Mexico, Australia, Korea and the EU will be exempted from the tariffs. This does not yet point to an all-out trade war between U.S. and the rest of the entire planet. Chart I-8Steel And Aluminum Tariffs: No Smoot-Hawley Table I-1Target Is Locked, Is It? While the probability of a generalized trade war with advanced economies is low, a continued toughening of relations with China is much more likely. President Trump wants greater access for U.S. firms to Chinese markets, and is likely to apply increasing pressure in that direction. For investors, it is important to evaluate if the U.S. is pursuing isolationist policies on a global level or if the impact will be limited to the Sino-American relationship. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service recommend investors track the following signposts: NAFTA: Marko Papic and his team see a 50% probability that NAFTA will be abrogated as Trump is constitutionally unconstrained from abrogating the deal. If the White House continues negotiating with Mexico and Canada, it increases the likelihood that the tariffs are a shot across the bow directed at China. If NAFTA is not only abrogated but if the trade relationship reverts back to WTO rules, this would signal that the U.S. will remain highly belligerent, raising the risk of implementation of a broader spectrum of tariffs. China Intellectual Property Theft: China only imports US$8 billion in intellectual property from the U.S., suggesting that large-scale theft is happening. The Trump Administration is investigating Chinese technology transfers and Intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This could lead to penalties imposed on China, including tariffs, an indemnity for past IP theft, and limitations to Chinese investments in the U.S. This would constitute a massive ratcheting up in Sino-U.S. tensions. This scenario has a much higher probability than a global trade war and it would have a meaningfully negative impact on the Chinese economy, as 19% of its exports are shipped to the U.S. The inflationary impact on the U.S. would be real as well. A global trade war would ultimately hurt the dollar as it would cause the dollar's share of global FX reserves to decline. However, commodity currencies, the Swedish krona and key EM currencies would suffer as global trade contracts (Chart I-9). The yen could perform especially well in this environment, rallying even against the euro (Chart I-10). But again, we see this scenario as a tail risk, not a base case. Chart I-9Key Losers From Falling Global Trade Chart I-10EUR/JPY Could Suffer If A Trade War Materializes Meantime, a bilateral conflict with China is likely to have a more limited impact on currency markets. However, the AUD would be the big loser in such a scenario as the Australian and Chinese economies are tightly linked (Chart I-11). This is an additional reason to underweight the AUD as the probability of growing Sino-American tensions is elevated. Finally, our short EUR/SEK trade is being very negatively affected by the current environment of trade tensions, as EUR/SEK rallies when global trade recedes (Chart I-12). Since we expect tensions to decrease over the coming months, EUR/SEK is likely to weaken, ultimately. Chart I-11China's Boost Is Dissipating Australia Is Tied To The Hip With China Chart I-12SEK At Odds With Trump Bottom Line: The current set of tariffs proposed by the White House is not the beginning of a global trade war. However, it shows that the probability of such an event has grown. Since we are anticipating that the Fed will fight inflationary forces created by further tariff impositions, we are fading the dollar's recent weakness. Yet, we worry that tariffs aimed more specifically at China could become more of a focus. So while we fade the impact of tariffs on the USD, risks are building up for EM currencies and the Australian dollar. Global trade tensions are also a major headwind to the Swedish krona. Housekeeping We are closing our short CAD/NOK trade at a 4.55% profit. Our target was hit, and the exemption of steel and aluminum tariffs for Canada is a positive outcome that could at least temporarily reduce the discount imputed on the CAD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Linde, Jesper and Andrea Pescatori (2017). "The Macroeconomic Effects of Trade Tariffs: Revisiting the Lerner Symmetry Result." IMF Working Paper No. 17/151, International Monetary Fund. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Shah, Nihar. "Foreign Dollar Reserves and Financial Stability"(2017) 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Twin Deficits: Bearish Or Not, The Fed Holds The Trump Card", dated March 6, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been positive for the dollar: PCE yearly inflation came in at 1.7%, outperforming expectations. ISM Manufacturing PMI and ISM prices paid both outperformed expectations, coming in at 60.8 and 74.2 respectively. Finally, unit labor costs yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.5%. The only blip were initial jobless claims that surprised to the upside, coming in at 210 thousand. The dollar has depreciated by roughly 1.2% in the month of March so far. Overall, we continue to see upside for the dollar in the short term. However, this will be a countertrend rally within a cyclical bear market. Report Links: The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - January 5, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the Euro area has been mixed: Producer price inflation came in at 1.5%, underperforming expectations. It also declined from 2.2% the previous month. Moreover, Markit services PMI AND Markit Composite PMI both underperformed expectations Finally, both the gross domestic product yearly growth and the unemployment rate came in line with expectations, at 2.7% and 8.6% respectively. After falling below 1.22, the euro has rallied by 2% in the month of March. However, in contrast to last year, data in the euro area is starting to disappoint expectations, as the effects of the tightening in financial conditions resulting from the higher euro are starting to be felt in the real economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Consumer confidence came in at 44.3, surprising to the downside. Moreover Markit Services PMI also surprised negatively, coming in at 51.7. However, the unemployment rate came in at 2.4%, surprising positively. It also decreased from 2.8% the previous month. Q4 2017 GDP growth was also revised up to 2.2% from 0.5%, thanks to strong capex. The yen has appreciate further in March, at one point even trading below 106 as investors were still digeseting the impact of Trump's tariffs. Overall, while we expect further upside to the yen in the current volatile environment, the BoJ will be forced to combat this strength. At 102, USD/JPY will be a buy Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been positive: PMI construction came in at 51.4, outperforming expectations. Moreover, Markit Services PMI came in at 54.4, also beating expectations. Finally, house price yearly growth also surprised positively, coming in at 1.8% After falling at the end of February, the pound has rallied by nearly 1%. Overall we expect the upside to the pound to be limited, given that Brexit negotiations are heating up and that any potential tightening by the Bank of England is already well priced in. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.4% Moreover, retail sales month-on-month growth underperformed expectations coming in at 0.1%. However, company gross operating profits quarterly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.2%. AUD/USD has rallied roughly 1.3% since the beginning of the month. Overall, we continue to be bearish on the Australian dollar, as the economy is still not generating enough endogenous inflationary pressures to justify hiking rates. Moreover, a slowdown in economic activity in China would also weigh on this cross. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The trade balance came in at NZD -3.2 billion, underperforming expectations. However, thanks to robust dairy prices, the terms-of-trade index outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.8%. NZD/USD has rallied by nearly 1% in the month of March. Overall, upside to the kiwi will be limited, given that this currency will suffer amid the persistence in volatility. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Housing starts surprised to the upside, coming in at 229.7 thousand. Moreover, the Ivey Purchasing Managers Index also outperformed expectations, coming in at 59.6. However, gross domestic product quarter on quarter growth underperformed, coming in at 1.7%. The Bank Of Canada left rates unchanged on Wednesday. Overall, the Canadian interest rates curve prices the policy outlook appropriately, the CAD has now cheapened in response to the risk of a full abrogation of NAFTA. While we do agree that the risk of NAFTA being abrogated is elevated, a return to the previously standing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement would have a limited impact on the Canadian economy. The downside risk to the CAD is now much more limited. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has generally been positive: The KOF leading indicator surprised to the upside, coming in at 108, and increasing from the previous month. Moreover, the unemployment rate also surprised positively, declining from 3% to 2.9%. However, retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.4% per annum. EUR/CHF has rallied by more than 1.5% since the beginning of the month. Overall, we expect this trend to continue, given that inflationary pressures in Switzerland are too weak for the SNB to back off from its ultra-loose monetary policy stance. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Registered unemployment came in line with expectations at 2.5%. However, it did go down from the previous month. Nevertheless, manufacturing output surprised negatively, coming in at -2%. USD/NOK has fallen by roughly 0.8% in the month of March. We are positive on the krone within the commodity currencies. This is because there are less hikes priced into the Norwegian curve than in other countries. Moreover, oil should outperform metals given than oil is less sensitive to a shock from China. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden has been mixed: Retail sales yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2%. Gross Domestic Product annual growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2%. However, the Manufacturing PMI surprised to the upside, coming in at 59.9. USD/SEK has been relatively flat this this month. Overall, we believe the Riksbank will be forced to lift rates in the face of rising prices. This will push EUR/SEK lower. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Overweight The managed health sector was shaken up this week with the announcement of another mega-merger, this time with Cigna buying the last major independent prescription benefits manager (PBM), Express Scripts, for $67 billion. This transaction follows the pending blockbuster acquisition of Aetna by CVS in the trend of vertical integration among health insurance providers and PBMs in an effort to rein in prescription prices, which have already started to fall (second panel). Assuming drug prices maintain their trajectory, other falling input costs (third panel) imply margin resilience in managed health should prove sustainable. Tack on a tight labor market and small-business hiring plans hitting new highs (unemployment rate shown inverted, bottom panel), and the outlook for EPS growth looks rosier than ever; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.

Underweight As with other metals-consuming industries, stocks in both the S&P auto components and S&P autos indexes have traded sharply lower following the announcement of the proposed steel and aluminum tariffs (top panel). With roughly a quarter share of domestic steel consumption, autos are second only to the construction industry in terms of exposure to higher steel prices. Fears of higher prices are amplified as new vehicle sales growth appears to be petering out. We think fears are well-founded but not because of higher steel prices but rather from a contraction in credit growth (second panel). Tighter lending standards (third panel) have followed a glut of subprime lending with rising defaults (bottom panel) that are only now working their way through lenders' balance sheets. A backdrop of potentially higher prices only fuels the flames on this negative story; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.