Developed Countries

Special Report

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a presentation I recently gave at the London School of Economics symposium: 'Will I Work For AI, Or Will AI Work For Me?' The presentation pulls together several years of research analyzing the impact of current technological advances on work, the economy and society. I hope you find the presentation insightful and provocative, especially the narrative surrounding Slide 12. Dhaval Joshi Slide 2 Feature Good afternoon Thank you very much for the invitation to speak here at the London School of Economics. The specific question you asked me was: will we be able to work in the future? (Slide 1). To which my answer is yes, an emphatic yes. I'm very optimistic that we will be able to work in the future. And one reason I'm saying this is, imagine that we had this symposium 100 years ago. I suspect we might have had exactly the same fears that we have right now (Slide 2). Slide 1 Slide 2 Specifically, at the start of the 20th century, about 35% of all jobs were on farms and another 6% were domestic servants. At the time, you could probably also have said, "Well, these jobs aren't going to exist." More or less half of the jobs that existed at that time were going to disappear - and disappear they did. So we'd have thought there would be mass unemployment. Of course, there wasn't mass unemployment, because just as jobs were destroyed, we had an equivalent job creation (Slide 3). For example, at the start of the 20th century, less than 5% of people worked in professional and technical jobs. But by the end of the century, these jobs employed a quarter of the workforce. I guess what I'm saying is that we're very conscious of job destruction because we can see existing jobs being destroyed. But we're not very conscious of job creation, because in real time, it's difficult to visualize or imagine where these new jobs will be. In essence, what we saw in the 20th century was one major segment of employment basically collapsed from very significant to insignificant. While another segment surged from insignificant to very significant (Slide 4). Slide 3 Slide 4 As you all know, there is an economic thesis that underlies this. It's called Say's Law, derived by French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in 1803. In simple terms, it says that new supply creates new demand. Think about it like this: why would you replace a human with a machine? You would only do that if it increases your productivity, right? Otherwise, it does not make sense to replace a human with any sort of machine, including AI. But because you have increased productivity, you then have extra income to spend on new goods and services. Now if those goods and services are being supplied by a machine, then you can redeploy humans to satiate new desires, desires that do not even exist at the time. In economic terms, the producer of X - as long as his products are demanded - is able to buy Y (Slide 5). The question is, what is Y? Y is the new product or service. Let me give you some examples (Slide 6). In the 19th century, we had the advent of railways. And then someone thought. "Hang on a minute. We have this way of moving things around much faster, and we've got all these people who live hundreds of miles from the coast who might want to eat fresh fish." So this was the birth of the frozen food industry. But you could not have the frozen food industry without railways. What I'm saying is that entrepreneurs will seize the new technology to satiate a desire. Or even create a new desire because maybe the people in the middle of the country never thought they could eat fresh sea fish. Until someone came along and said, "you can eat fresh fish now." Slide 5 Slide 6 Another example is, as technology improved the health and longevity of your teeth someone thought. "Well, hang on a minute. Maybe there's a desire to make teeth look beautiful." And we created this whole new industry called the dental cosmetics industry. We know this because prior to the 1960s, there was no job called dental technician or dental hygienist. A third example is, let's say that we have more advanced healthcare and pharmaceuticals, so humans are living longer and healthier lives. Well, then you can sort of ask. "Hang on a minute. Don't you want your dog to live the same long and healthy life that you're living?" And this is behind the explosion of the pet care industry that we're seeing at the moment. So while one segment of the economy will employ less, a new segment will come along to replace it. In the 20th century we saw farm work disappearing but professional work rising. Today, we are seeing manufacturing and driving jobs disappearing but healthcare work rising (Slide 7). Which does raise a pretty obvious question (Slide 8). Is there anything really different this time around? Slide 7 Slide 8 Well, the answer is yes, there is a subtle but crucial difference this time around. To see the difference, we have to look more closely at where jobs are being destroyed, and where they are being created. As you can see, the mega-sectors losing a lot of jobs are manufacturing, the auto industry, and finance (Slide 9). While on the other side of the ledger, we have job creation in health, social work and education. But now, let's look in a little more detail. Where, specifically, are the jobs being created? For this we have to look at the United States data which is much more granular than in Europe. Here are the top five subsectors of job creation this decade (Slide 10). At the top of the list is food services and drinking places, which is just a euphemistic way of describing bartenders, waitresses, and pizza delivery boys. We also have a lot of new administrative jobs and care workers. What is the common link in this job creation? Answer: these are predominantly low-income jobs. Slide 9 Slide 10 So it is true that we have an enormous amount of job creation in the last decade or so, and the policymakers keep boasting about it, they say, "Well look, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is at a record low, the unemployment rate in the UK is at a record low, the unemployment rate in Germany is at a record low. We're creating loads and loads of jobs." The trouble is that these are predominantly low-income jobs. Meanwhile the job destruction is in middle-income jobs in manufacturing and finance. This means what we're seeing in the labour market is called a 'negative composition effect' - a hollowing out of middle incomes. So while we're getting loads and loads of job creation, it is not translating into wage inflation at an aggregate level. I think one of the reasons is a concept called Moravec's paradox. Professor Hans Moravec is an expert in robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and he noticed this paradox (Slide 11). He said, "Look. For AI, the things that we think are difficult are actually easy." By easy, he means they're doable. Let me give you some specific examples. Say someone could speak five languages fluently and translate between them at ease. We would think that person is a genius, a real rare specimen, and the economy would value this person extremely highly, probably pay that person hundreds of thousands of pounds at a minimum. But actually, AI can translate across five languages quite easily, and even something like Google Translate, which we all use, does a reasonably good first stab at translating from one language to another. Slide 11 Or consider something like insurance underwriting. Pricing an insurance premium from lots of data on a risk. AI can do that extremely well, much better than a human can. Or medical diagnosis. Figuring out what's wrong with a patient from very detailed medical data. Again, AI beats humans hands down on that. What I'm saying is, these skills that we thought were difficult transpired not to be that difficult for AI, because they just amount to narrow-frame pattern recognition and repetition of algorithms. Whereas, the second part of Moravec's paradox is that AI finds the easy things very hard. Things that we think are really innate, we don't even give them a second thought like walking up some stairs, cleaning a table, moving objects around, and cleaning around them. Actually, AI finds these things incredibly difficult, almost impossible. We have a false sense of what is difficult and what is easy. The main reason is that the things that we find innate took millions and millions of years of human brain evolution for us to find them innate. And as AI is in essence trying to replicate the human brain, only now are we recognizing that things that we find innate are actually incredibly complex. If it took millions and millions of years to evolve the sensorimotor skills that allow us to walk up some stairs, recognize subtle emotional signals, and respond appropriately, then obviously AI is going to find it very, very difficult to replicate those innate human skills. Conversely, the brain's ability to do calculus, construct a grammatical structure for a language, or play chess only evolved relatively recently. So AI can do them very easily. Which brings me to quite a profound thought. If there's one thing that I want you to remember from this presentation it is this (Slide 12). Might we have completely misvalued the human brain? Might we have grossly overvalued things that are actually quite easy? And might we have undervalued things which are actually very, very difficult? And what AI is now doing is correcting this huge error. In which case, the next decade could be extremely disruptive as AI corrects this economic misvaluation of our skills. Slide 12 This might also explain the mystery as to why there is no wage inflation when the Phillips curve says there should be. The Phillips curve makes a simple relationship between the unemployment rate and wage pressures. And the folks at the Federal Reserve and Bank of England, they're sort of getting really perplexed. They're saying, "Look, unemployment is so low. Where is this wage inflation? It's going to kick in any time now." In fact, there's a bit of a paradox going on. For the people who are continuously employed in the same job, there has been pretty good wage inflation - at sort of three, four percent (Slide 13). But when you take the negative composition effect into account, then suddenly there's this big gap because what's happening is that the well-paid jobs are disappearing to be replaced by lower-paid jobs. So even if you give the bartender making thirty thousand a big pay rise to thirty-five thousand. Even if you hire two of them, but you're losing a finance job paying over a hundred thousand, then at the aggregate level, you won't see much wage inflation. And this problem, I think, continues for the next few years, minimum. It means that you will not get the wage pressures that a lot of economists think you're going to get from the low unemployment rate. Because you have to look at the quality of the jobs as well as the quantity. I think there is another disturbing impact from a societal perspective. Look again at where the jobs are being lost and where they're being created, and look at the percentage of male employees (Slide 14). Job destruction is occurring in sectors that are male-dominated, whereas job creation is occurring in sectors that are female-dominated. Slide 13 Slide 14 AI is good at narrow-frame pattern recognition and repetition of algorithms and functions - jobs like driving, which are typically male-dominated. Whereas jobs that require emotional input, emotional understanding, and empathy in the 'caring sectors' are typically female-dominated. So if you're a male, you're in trouble. You're in a lot of trouble. Obviously, there'll be re-training, so all the guys who were driving trucks will have to retrain as nurses, or as essential carers. But if you're a female, things are looking okay. You can see that in the data (Slide 15). Female labour force participation is in a very clear uptrend. Male participation is flat to down. This varies by country by country, and in the U.S., it's catastrophic for males, especially young males. Young male participation in the U.S. is really falling off a cliff at the moment. I think the other thing to say from a societal perspective is that the so-called 'Superstar Economy' is booming - both superstar individuals and superstar firms. One way of seeing this is in this index called 'the cost of living extremely well' calculated every year by Forbes (Slide 16). Whereas the ordinary CPI includes the cost of bread and milk, the CPI index for the extremely rich includes the cost of Petrossian caviar and Dom Perignon champagne. And a Learjet 70, a Sikorsky S-76D helicopter. I think there's a pedigree racehorse in there too. Anyway, we're seeing the CPI for the extremely rich rising at a dramatically faster pace than the CPI for society as a whole. So it would seem that superstar individuals and superstar firms are really thriving. Slide 15 Slide 16 Let's explain this dynamic in terms of a superstar we all recognise - Roger Federer. Roger Federer was unknown initially, but as he went up the tennis rankings and became a superstar, his income grew exponentially. The other aspect is, how long can he stay a superstar? Because all superstars are eventually displaced by a new superstar. So there's two aspects to the dynamics of superstar incomes (Slide 17). First, how exponential is your income growth? And second, how long do you stay a superstar? What I'm saying is that the rise of AI, by hollowing out the middle jobs, actually allows a few superstars to have this exponential rise in their income. Let's think about it in terms of the legal profession. The top lawyer will be in huge demand. Technology really boosts him. Not just AI, but things like the internet, the fact that social media will reinforce his position, whereby everyone will know who he is. Even if he can't service you directly, he will have a team with his brand on it. And he can stay there for longer before he is displaced. So this is the mechanism by which technology can increase income inequality by hollowing out the middle. In the legal profession, the assistant lawyer who just checks a document for simple legal principle, well the machine can do that. But the guy who knows all the oddities, who knows all the loopholes that can win you the case, the machine won't be able to do that. Essentially what I'm saying is that the technological revolution - it's not just AI, it's technology in aggregate, including the internet and social media, and so on - it increases the rate of income growth for a few superstar individuals and firms. And it increases their longevity (Slide 18). And these are the two drivers for the Pareto distribution of incomes. You can actually go through the mathematics of this to show that it does increase the polarization of incomes. Slide 17 Slide 18 Let's sum up (Slide 19). First of all, yes, we will be able to work in the future. I don't think there's any doubt about that because there will be new jobs created, the nature of which we can only guess because we're going to get new industries to satiate our new desires. However, in the coming years, middle-income work will suffer high disruption because of Moravec's Paradox. Some things that we thought were difficult are actually quite easy for AI. But things like gardening, plumbing, nursing, and childcare are very difficult for machines to replicate. Which means that low-income work will suffer much less disruption and, of course, low-income work will get paid better over time - though the gap is so large at the moment that it's preventing overall wage inflation from kicking in. And that, I think, will persist for the next few years at a minimum. Slide 19 Men are going to suffer much more disruption than women because of the nature of the job destruction versus the job creation. And the final point is that superstars will thrive. All of this has a lot of implications for how we respond as a society, and maybe we will need some support mechanisms in this period of disruption. I think the most intense disruption will be in the next decade. After that we will reach a new equilibrium once we have actually corrected this misvaluation of the brain, this misvaluation of what it is that makes us truly human. Thank you very much. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com

Highlights As the Fed proceeds with its policy tightening this year, higher real rates and a stronger USD will weigh on silver and platinum prices, and, to a lesser extent, palladium prices. Offsetting these downward pressures, silver, and to a lesser extent platinum, could take their lead from the gold market, and outperform on the back of increased equity volatility and understated geopolitical risks this year.1 Palladium, as always, will march to its own drummer, as this market's defining feature remains chronic physical deficits and depleted inventories, which will prevent prices from reacting too severely to tighter Fed policy this year. Energy: Overweight. Supply-demand fundamentals still are supportive of crude oil prices overall, and continued backwardation in forward curves. Our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI calendar spread, which gains as backwardation becomes more pronounced, is up 47.4% since inception on November 2, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Base metals remain well supported by still-strong global growth, estimates of which were revised higher by the IMF in its most recent World Economic Outlook. Precious Metals: Neutral. Fed tightening this year will weigh on silver and platinum, less so palladium (see below). Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 7.9%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA revised down its forecast of U.S. corn ending stocks in the latest WASDE on the back of an upwards revision to U.S. corn exports. Feature The term "precious metals" is something of a misnomer: Gold, silver, and platinum-group metals (PGMs) - chiefly platinum and palladium - do not constitute a single asset class, and should not be treated as such (Chart of the Week). Nevertheless, as with most commodity markets we cover, the evolution of these markets is highly sensitive to U.S. financial variables, particularly as regards monetary policy. Palladium is something of an outlier: It behaves more like an industrial metal, while silver, and to a lesser extent platinum, are more sensitive to the fundamental drivers of gold prices - i.e., the evolution of the USD's broad trade-weighted index (USD TWIB), and real U.S. interest rates. Palladium's demand is dominated by its use in catalytic converters in gasoline-powered cars, whereas industrial applications form a more limited source of demand for platinum and silver (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekA Schism In Precious Metals Chart 2Industrial Uses Dominate Palladium Gold, silver, and, to a more limited extent platinum are cointegrated in the long run, meaning their prices follow their own random walks, even though they share a long-term trend. Palladium, on the other hand, is more responsive to the physical realities of the automobile market - chiefly, demand for gasoline-powered cars. In our econometric analysis of the behavior of PGMs and silver, we use the CRB Metals Index as a proxy for industrial activity. We find that while all three are sensitive to changes in the CRB Metals Index, palladium prices are significantly more responsive (i.e., elastic) to industrial activity than platinum and silver (Table 1). Table 1Palladium Behaves Like An Industrial Metal Furthermore, while gold prices impact both silver, and, to a lesser extent platinum, they are not significant when it comes to the palladium market. Bullish Fundamentals Tightened Palladium Market Palladium registered a 60% gain in 2017. Its forward curve has been backwardated since June (Chart 3). This backwardation - i.e., spot prices trade higher than deferred prices - is a symptom of a tight market. In fact, according to Thomson Reuters GFMS data, the palladium market has been in a chronic deficit since 2007, with the 2017 deficit the largest since 2000. The culprit in this case has been strong demand and stagnant supply. While supply has been growing ~ 1% year-over-year (yoy) over the past 5 years, demand growth has averaged 1.7% yoy over the same period. Palladium demand over this period has been driven by its growing use in automobile catalytic converters, most notably in China, where sales of gasoline-powered cars exceed those of diesel-powered cars, which typically use platinum in their catalytic converters (Chart 4). Chart 3Tight Fundamentals In##BR##The Palladium Market Chart 4Growing Demand For##BR##Autocatalysts Dominated In The Past... Growth in global demand for palladium-based autocatalysts averaged 4.8% yoy in the past 5 years. The use of palladium for autocatalysts now makes up more than 75% of global palladium demand, up from 56% 10 years ago. Chinese demand for palladium used in autocatalysts grew from 10% of global demand in 2007 to more than a quarter of global demand last year. Given autocatalysts' oversized contribution to demand growth, the palladium market is highly dependent on car sales. Our modelling highlights global car production as a significant explanatory variable when it comes to palladium prices. Most significant are the U.S. and Chinese markets, which are the largest markets for gasoline-powered cars. While vehicle sales in China were strong in 2016, they have slowed considerably and recorded yoy declines in the most recent November and December data (Chart 5). Slowing demand growth for cars in China likely comes on the back of the phasing out of tax cuts on small vehicles. This will limit the upside for palladium prices from China's industrial demand. Growth in car sales in the U.S. has been even more muted, contracting in 2017 for the first time since 2009. However, a more concerted adoption of gasoline-powered cars in Europe - largely in response to efforts by cities to reduce emissions of particulate matter from diesel engines, and the highly publicized emissions-testing scandals involving European carmakers - will, at least partially, mitigate the negative impact of slowing demand from the top two gasoline-powered markets. On the supply side, global mine supply has been relatively stagnant over the past 5 years, expanding an average 1.2% yoy during this period. Russia, South Africa and Canada account for almost 90% of total palladium mine supply. And while Russian and South African supplies have been relatively flat over the years, Canadian palladium has grown to account for ~11% of global supply in 2017, up from 4% in 2010. Global palladium supply has been supported by metal recovered from autocatalyst scrap, which has been averaging 4.8% yoy growth in supply over the past 5 years. In fact, the share of palladium recovered from autocatalyst scrap has almost doubled in the past 10 years, and now makes up almost 20% of total supply. Growth in this source of supply has come down significantly (Chart 6). However, we expect palladium's exorbitant price and elevated steel prices to incentivize an increase in the metal's recovery from scrap. Indeed, GFMS expects recycled palladium to pave record highs this year and to surpass 2 million ounces next year. Chart 5...But Beware Of Slowing Gasoline Car Sales Chart 6Palladium Needs Restocking Strong demand, combined with limited supply growth, has weighed on palladium inventories. Furthermore, ETF holdings of palladium have come down sharply while net speculative long positions have skyrocketed. Given that stocks are so low, we do not expect a severe fall in prices. Bottom Line: Palladium behaves like an industrial metal and is especially sensitive to changes in demand for automobiles. While the stars were aligned for palladium last year - a weak USD, low real interest rates, and bullish fundamentals - car sales in the U.S. and China have been slow recently. Even so, a physical deficit will prevent a crash in the palladium market this year. Platinum Trading At A Discount To Palladium In contrast with palladium's remarkable performance last year, platinum was up a mere 3.4% in 2017. In fact palladium, which usually trades at a discount to platinum, has been more expensive since October (Chart 7). This can be attributed to differences in fundamentals. Palladium's market conditions have been significantly tighter than platinum. Greater demand for the physical metal than supply put the market in deficit last year, which supported platinum prices. As with palladium, catalytic converters are a major demand source for platinum; however, they account for ~ 40% of platinum demand - considerably less than the roughly 80% share of palladium demand accounted for by catalytic converter demand. Europe is the largest market for diesel cars, and, while total vehicle sales in Europe have remained healthy, diesel-powered cars have been losing market share since the Volkswagen emissions-rigging scandal came to light in 2015 (Chart 8). This hit platinum use in autocatalysts particularly hard. In addition, weaker demand from its second use - jewelry - is keeping a lid on platinum prices (Chart 9). In fact, Chinese demand for the white metal, which accounts for more than 50% of global platinum jewelry demand, has been falling. Despite weakening demand, global balances remained in deficit on the back of muted supply. Chart 7Platinum Now Cheaper Than Palladium Chart 8EU Diesel Car Market Losing Momentum Chart 9Platinum Jewelry Losing Its Appeal Platinum's market balance could be at risk if carmakers start using more of it in catalytic converters, now that it trades at a discount to palladium. Platinum is a superior material for autocatalysts, but palladium has been traditionally favored on a cost basis. Platinum's lower price incentivizes carmakers to switch to this metal. According to Johnson Matthey, it will be two years before the impact of such substitution begins to affect the palladium market. Bottom Line: Subdued demand for platinum jewelry combined with the loss of market share for diesel-powered cars in Europe will keep a lid on the platinum market this year. However, platinum follows gold, and this could support prices if equity investors hedge market volatility and future corrections by purchasing the metal. Silver Follows Gold Silver, and, to a lesser extent, platinum are not as exposed to the industrial business cycle as palladium. These metals' prices instead move in line with gold (Chart 10). Our modeling reveals that a 1% increase in gold prices is associated with a 0.76 pp increase in silver prices. Thus gold's spillovers to the silver market are significant. Even so, there are periods when this relationship disconnects. This is because, although industrial uses do not account for as large a share of silver demand as they do for palladium, such fundamentals do account for a significant source of demand. Thus, in addition to the financial factors which drive gold, silver's industrial applications give it some exposure to economic activity. In fact, a 1% increase in the CRB Metals Index is associated with a 0.17pp increase in silver prices. This explains why, in some instances, silver's cointegration with gold weakens. As a practical matter, gold is a superior hedge against equity downfalls than silver (Chart 11). While gold month-on-month (mom) returns outperform S&P 500 mom returns almost 80% of the time in periods of decreasing equity returns, the ratio for silver comes in at a lower 67%. On the other hand, gold mom returns outperform S&P 500 returns less than 30% of the time during periods when equities are increasing, while silver outperforms the stock market almost 40% of the time. Chart 10Silver And Gold##BR##Move In Tandem Chart 11Gold Outperforms Amid Equity Downfalls,##BR##Not During Rising Stocks In addition, although both gold's and silver's correlations with the S&P 500 become large and negative when the S&P 500 decreases in yoy terms, this negative correlation in the case of gold is significantly larger than for silver (Chart 12). In fact, along with silver's relatively weaker negative correlation with the S&P 500 during periods of negative equity returns, silver also exhibits a relatively stronger positive correlation with equities during periods of positive returns. While silver is an effective hedge against geopolitical and economic crises, gold's hedging ability remains superior (Chart 13). Silver and gold post similar returns during geopolitical crises; however, gold returns are significantly higher during economic crisis. Chart 12Negative Correlations More##BR##Pronounced During Equity Downfalls Chart 13Gold Is A##BR##Superior Protection This supports the finding that silver's hedging ability is hampered by its use in industrial applications, which make it more responsive to the business cycle than gold. Bottom Line: Gold and silver prices are cointegrated. However, given silver's industrial applications, it is more sensitive to business activity. This explains the periods of divergence in the two precious metals, and limits silver's ability to hedge against economic crises and falling equities. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 For a discussion of the gold market fundamentals, please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Gold Still Shines Despite Threat Of Higher Rates," dated February 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights The best recession indicators are not flashing red, but volatility is rising as the end of the cycle approaches; U.S. fiscal policy is surprising to the upside, as we expected; The next recession will usher in an inflationary political paradigm shift, with wealth transferred from Baby Boomers to Millennials; Expect a new U.K. election ahead of March 2019, but do not expect a second referendum unless popular opinion swings decisively against Brexit; Stay short U.S. 10-year Treasuries versus German bunds; short Fed Funds Dec 2018 futures; and initiate a short GBP/USD trade. Feature February has been tough for global markets, with the S&P 500 falling by 5.9% since the beginning of the month. Several clients have pointed out that the market may be sniffing out a recession and that the "buy the dip" strategy is therefore no longer applicable. It is true that markets and recessions go together (Chart 1), but it is not clear from the data that the equity market alone predicts recessions correctly. Chart 1Bear Markets & Recessions: Unclear Which One Leads The Other BCA's House View is that a recession is likely at the end of 2019.1 This view is in no small part based on our political analysis.2 President Trump ran on a populist electoral platform and populist policymakers globally have a successful track record of delivering higher nominal GDP growth than their non-populist counterparts (Chart 2). We assume that the Powell Fed will respond to such higher growth and inflation prospects no differently from the Yellen Fed and that it will restrict monetary policy to an extent that will usher in a mild recession by the end of next year. Chart 2Populists Deliver (Nominal) GDP Growth Of course, predicting recessions is extraordinarily difficult. Being six months early or late would still be an achievement, but the implications for the equity market would likely be considerably different. If our "late 2019" call is actually an "early 2019" recession, then equity markets may indeed be at or near their cyclical peaks. A "buy on dips" strategy may work for the next quarter or so, but superior returns over the course of the year may be achieved with a bearish strategy. To help guide clients through the uncertainty, our colleague Doug Peta, chief strategist of BCA's Global ETF Strategy, has recently updated BCA's methodology for identifying the inflection points that usher in a recession.3 In our 70-year history as an investment research house, we have picked up two definitive truths: valuation and technical indicators cannot call a recession. So what can? We encourage clients to pick up a copy of Doug's analysis.4 The report highlights the three BCA Research recession indicators: the orientation of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in the leading economic indicator (LEI),5 and the monetary policy backdrop. Charts 3, 4, and 5 show how successful the three indicators are in calling recessions. In our 50-year sample period, the yield curve has successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. However, it tends to be overly eager, preceding the onset of a recession by an average of nearly twelve months. When we combine the yield curve indicator with the LEI, the false positives go away. Chart 3The Yield Curve Has Called Seven Of The Last Eight Recessions... Chart 4... And So Has The Leading Economic Indicator To confirm the recession signal and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA's equilibrium fed funds rate model has calculated an estimate of the equilibrium policy rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate exceeded our estimate of equilibrium. In other words, recessions only occur when monetary policy settings are restrictive. Today, none of the indicators are even close to pointing to a recession, with the LEI at a cyclical peak. However, the yield curve and monetary policy are directionally moving towards the end of the cycle. Taken together, they suggest that the only controversy about our late 2019 recession call is that it is so early. So why the market volatility? Because wage growth in the U.S. has begun to pick up in earnest (Chart 6), revealing that BCA's concerns about inflation may at last be coming true. Investors, after more than a year of rationalizing weak inflation by means of dubious concepts (Amazon, AI, robots, etc.), may be reassessing their forecasts in real time, causing market turbulence. Chart 5Tight Policy Is A Necessary,##br## If Not Sufficient, Recession Ingredient Chart 6Wages Picking##br## Up In Earnest There is of course a political explanation as well. Our colleague Peter Berezin correctly called the end of the 35-year bond bull market on July 5, 2016.6 The timing of the call - mere days after the U.K. EU membership referendum - was not a coincidence. As Peter mused at the time, "the post-Brexit shock running through policy circles leads to a further easing in fiscal and monetary policy." He was not speaking about the U.K. alone, but in global terms. Indeed, the populists have begun to deliver. Ever since President Trump's election, we have cautioned clients not to doubt the White House's populist credentials.7 After a surge in bond bearishness immediately following the election, investors lost faith in the populist narrative due to the failure of Congress to pass any significant legislation, as if Congress has ever been a nimble institution under previous presidents. But investors are beginning to realize that their collective political analysis was extremely wrong. Not only have profligate tax cuts been passed, as we controversially expected throughout 2017, but Congress is now on the brink of a monumental two-year appropriations bill that will add nearly 1% of GDP worth of fiscal thrust in 2018 higher than what the IMF expected for the U.S. (Chart 7). In addition, Congress has set in motion the process to re-authorize the use of "earmarks" - i.e. legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts (Chart 8).8 Chart 72018 Fiscal Thrust Was Unexpected Chart 8Here Comes Pork! By our back-of-the-envelope accounting, Congress is about to authorize just shy of $400bn in extra spending over the next two years.9 If earmarks are allowed back into the legislative process, we could see up to another $50bn in spending. An infrastructure deal, which now also looks likely given that the Democrats have realized that their "resistance"/ "outrage" strategy does not work against the Trump White House, could add significantly to that total. We are already positioned for these political developments through two fixed-income recommendations. We are short U.S. 10-year Treasuries vs. German Bunds, a recommendation that has returned 27.7 bps since September 2017. In addition, we are short the Fed Funds December 2018 futures, a recommendation that has returned 43.17 bps since the same initiation date. In addition, we went long the U.S. dollar index (DXY) on January 31, right before the stock market correction and precisely when the greenback appeared to bottom. Should investors prepare for runaway inflation this cycle? Is it time to load up on gold? We do not think so. The fiscal impulse from the two-year budget deal will become negative in 2020. The capex incentives from the tax cut plan are also front-loaded. The paradigm-shifting impact on inflation will require a policy paradigm shift. And we expect such a shift only after the next recession. To put it bluntly, U.S. voters elected a TV game show host due to angst at a time when unemployment stood at 4.6% (the rate on November 2016). Who will they elect with unemployment rising to 6% in the aftermath of the next recession, or God forbid if that next recession is worse than we think it will be? Policymakers are unlikely to sit around and wait for an answer to that question. Extraordinary measures will be taken to prevent the median voter from lashing out against the system when the next recession hits. Inflation, which is a redistributive mechanism, will be employed to transfer wealth from savers (mainly well-to-do retirees) to consumers (their children). In large part, this will be a generational wealth transfer between Baby Boomers (or at least those with some savings) and their Millennial children. Given that Millennials have become the largest voting bloc in the U.S. as of the 2016 election, this will be a populist policy with firm backing in the electorate. The next recession will therefore usher in the inflationary era of the next decade, regardless of how painful the actual recession is. In the meantime, we recommend that clients with a 9-to-12 month horizon continue to "buy on dips," given that a recession is not on the horizon. However, with the U.S. 10-year yield approaching 3%, China moderately slowing down (with considerable risk to the downside), and the U.S. dollar slide arrested, we think that the outperformance of EM equities is over. Brexit: We Can't Work It Out10 The EU agreed on January 29 to its negotiation guidelines for the temporary transition period after the U.K. officially leaves the bloc in March 2019.11 The British press predictably balked at the conditions - the term "vassal state" has been liberally bandied about - which in our view included absolutely nothing out of the expected. The EU conditions for the transition period are not the fundamental problem. Rather, the problem is that the "Vote Leave" campaign was never honest with its promises. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister in Prime Minister Theresa May's cabinet, famously quipped after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 The problem with that promise, however, was that it was predicated on using London's "superior negotiating position" vis-à-vis the EU in order to force the Europeans to redefine what membership in the Common Market means. As we pointed out in our net assessment ahead of the Brexit referendum, the problem with exiting the EU but remaining in the Common Market is that the issue of sovereignty is not resolved (Diagram 1).13 As such, Johnson and other Brexit supporters argued that they could change the relationship by forcing the EU to change how the Common Market works. Diagram 1Common Market Membership Is Illogical Except for one problem: the U.K.'s negotiating position is not, never was, nor ever will be, superior. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how trade works can understand this. For example, the U.K. is a significant market for Germany, at 6% of German exports (right in line with the 6% of total EU exports that go to the U.K.). However, the EU is a far greater destination for British exports, with 47% of all exports going to the bloc.14 As we expected, the EU has surprised the conventional wisdom by remaining united in the face of negotiations. And as we also predicted, the Tories are now completely divided.15 PM May will attempt to hammer out an internal deal on how to approach the transition deal. But her political capital is so drained by the disastrous early election results that there is practically no way that she can produce a set of negotiating guidelines that will not be pilloried in the press. As such, we expect a new election to take place in the U.K. ahead of March 2019, perhaps sooner. We do not see how May's negotiating position will satisfy all wings of the Conservative Party. In addition, we see no scenario by which the ultimate exit deal with the EU gets enough votes in Westminster. Investors betting on that election replacing a second Brexit referendum would be wrong. A Jeremy Corbyn-led, Labour government will only turn against Brexit once the polls definitively turn against it. This has not yet happened, as the gap between supporters and opponents of Brexit in the polls, while widening in favor of opponents, remains within a margin of error (Chart 9). As such, Corbyn would scrap the Tory-led negotiations with the EU and ask Brussels for even more time - and thus more market uncertainty! - in order to produce a Labour-led Brexit deal.16 In order for the probability of Brexit to definitively decline, the polls have to show that "Bregret" or "Bremorse" is setting in. Without a move in the polls, U.K. politicians will continue to pursue Brexit, no matter how flawed their tactics may be. Policymakers are ultimately not the price makers but the price takers. On the issue of Brexit, the U.K. median voter is only slightly miffed regarding the outcome. Current polls suggest that Labour could win the next election, albeit needing to rule with a coalition (Chart 10). This would prolong the uncertainty facing the economy. Not only is Corbyn the most left-leaning politician in a major European economy since François Mitterand, but also his coalition would likely include the Scottish National Party and potentially the Liberal Democrats. Keeping all their priorities aligned could be even more difficult than the balancing act PM May is performing between soft-Brexiters, hard-Brexiters, and the Democratic Unionist Party. Chart 9Bremorse: Rising, But Not Definitive Chart 10Anti-Brexit Forces On The Rise Meanwhile, on the economic front, the situation is not much better. Our colleague Rob Robis, BCA's chief bond strategist, recently penned a critical assessment of the U.K. economy.17 As Rob pointed out, the OECD leading economic indicator is decelerating steadily and pointing to a real GDP growth rate below 2% in 2018 (Chart 11). The biggest factors that will weigh on growth will be a sluggish consumer and softer capex. Household consumer growth has been slowing since early 2017, driven by diminishing consumer confidence (Chart 12, top panel). High realized inflation, which has sapped the purchasing power of U.K. workers who have not seen matching increases in wages, is weighing on confidence (third panel). Consumers were able to maintain a decent pace of spending during a period of stagnant real income growth by drawing on savings, but that looks to be tapped out now with the saving rate down to a 19-year low of 5.5% (bottom panel). Chart 11U.K. Growth Set To Slow Chart 12The U.K. Consumer Looks Tapped Out Making matters worse, U.K. consumers are not seeing much of a wealth effect from the housing market. The January 2018 readings of the year-over-year growth rate of U.K. house prices from the Halifax and Nationwide indexes came in at 1.9% and 3.1% respectively (Chart 13). In addition, the net balance of national house price expectations from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has steadily declined since mid-2016 and now sits just above zero (i.e. equal number of respondents expecting higher prices and falling prices). The same indicator for London was a staggering -47% in January 2018. Apparently, foreigners are no longer interested in a Brexit discount. Our global bond team goes on to point out that political uncertainty is also weighing on U.K. business investment spending. Capital expenditure growth slowed to 4.3% year-over-year in nominal terms in Q3 2017 and is even lower in real terms (Chart 14). Chart 13No Wealth Effect ##br## From Housing Chart 14Brexit Gloom Trumps ##br##Export Boom For U.K. Companies Putting all of this together, neither our global bond team nor our foreign exchange team expect the Bank of England to raise interest rates, despite the market pricing in 36 bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. As Chart 15 illustrates, inflation across a broad swath of components is likely to slow sharply in the coming months as the trade-weighted pound has stopped depreciating. Thus, the pass-through from a lower exchange rate is beginning to dissipate.18 In the long-term, we understand why investors are itching to bet on Brexit never happening. But to get from here to there, the market will have to riot. And that means more downside to U.K. assets. Chart 15U.K. Inflation:##br## Less Pass-Through From The Pound Chart 16GBP:##br## Stuck In A Rut Bottom Line: BCA's FX strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that the trade-weighted pound is testing the upper bound of its post-Brexit trading range (Chart 16). As our FX and bond teams show in their respective research, the economics currently at play make it unlikely that the pound will be able to punch above the ceiling of this range. Our political assessment adds to this view. In fact, we expect that the coming political uncertainty, including an early election prior to March 2019, is likely to take the pound back to the floor of its trading range. As such, we are recommending that clients short cable, GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market," dated January 24, 2014, and "Timing Equity Bear Markets," dated April 6, 2011, available at bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 5 The ten components of leading economic index for the U.S. include: 1. Average weekly hours, manufacturing; 2. Average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance; 3. Manufacturers' new orders, consumer goods and materials; 4. ISM® Index of New Orders; 5. Manufacturers' new orders, nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft orders; 6. Building permits, new private housing units; 7. Stock prices, 500 common stocks; 8. Leading Credit Index TM; 9. Interest rate spread, 10-year Treasury bonds less federal funds; and 10. Index of consumer expectations. Source: The Conference Board. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 We are referring to the Senate deal struck last week to authorize additional military spending ($80bn in FY2018 and $85bn in FY2019) and discretionary spending ($63bn in FY2018 and $68bn in FY2019), as well as to provide disaster relief in the amount of $45bn for both fiscal years. 10 Life is very short, and there's no time ... For fussing and fighting, my friend ... 11 Please see European Council, "Brexit: Council (Article 50) adopts negotiating directives on the transition period," dated January 29, 2018, available at consilium.europa.eu. 12 Please see "UK will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 This is not a coincidence. The whole point of the EU is that it is the world's richest consumer market. As such, it has massive negotiating leverage with all trade partners. As a side note, this throws into doubt the logic that the U.K. can get better trade deals by leaving the bloc. The first test of that premise will be its negotiations with the EU itself. 15 Please see BCA Special Report, "Break Glass To Brexit: A Fact Sheet," dated June 17, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Investors should remember that Westminster voted decisively 319 to 23 to reject the Liberal Democrats' amendment seeking a referendum on the final Brexit agreement. Only nine Labour MPs voted in favor of the amendment after Jeremy Corbyn instructed his party to abstain. 17 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt-Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?" dated January 23, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com.

The 10% tactical pullback that we had been flagging in recent publications with the tech sector correctly sniffing it out has materialized, and our strategy is to start "buying the dip" as we do not foresee a recession in the coming 9-12 months. While an undershoot cannot be ruled out, given the emotional nature of recent market action, a number of indicators we track suggest that it would be a mistake to get extremely bearish at the current juncture: First, the recent market swoon along with rising EPS estimates have knocked down valuations, pushing them to a 16 handle on a 12-month forward P/E basis, which is also the 4-year average (see chart below). Second, credit spreads have been surprisingly quiet. Bond spreads across the risk spectrum are extremely sensitive to risk-off phases and one would have expected a sharp widening in spreads during the recent turmoil. Third, the U.S. dollar has remained muted despite recent stock market jitters. A soft greenback is purely redistributive and represents a boost to global growth. Fourth, short equity market positions are pinned near all-time highs, representing latent dry powder. Finally, the VIX went vertical, surging beyond the 50 level. Both the jump in the VIX and the swift reversal of 175K net short to roughly 85K net long speculative VIX futures positions signal that capitulation was likely hit. In other words, all these indicators suggest that the bulk of the selling may have already occurred, and an absorption/consolidation phase will likely take place in the next few weeks. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details.

Highlights Spread Product: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm despite the correction in equity markets. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now, but be prepared to reduce exposure once long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Volatility: While implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. Municipal Bonds: After-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. MBS: The option-adjusted spread offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to an investment grade corporate bond. Feature Chart 1Corporate Spreads Are Stoic The stock market is down and volatility is up dramatically. At least so far the pass through to credit spreads has been relatively mild (Chart 1), but this does not make us more optimistic. Rather, our sense is that last week's market action is yet another sign that we are approaching the end of the credit cycle. Same Loop, Different Day Last week's equity sell off is best viewed through the lens of the Fed Policy Loop that we introduced in 2015 (Chart 2).1 The Fed Policy Loop is a framework for understanding the interplay between monetary policy and risk assets. Its recent dynamics can be summarized as follows: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels the outperformance of risk assets, and seven months of falling inflation between last January and August kept that perception in place for all of 2017. The end result is that financial conditions eased dramatically - stock prices soared and credit spreads tightened. But easing financial conditions also sow the seeds of their own destruction. Easier financial conditions eventually beget stronger growth and stronger growth eventually begets higher inflation (Chart 3). Last week the market finally caught a whiff of inflation and started to price-in a more hawkish Fed reaction function. Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Chart 3Financial Conditions Lead Growth And Growth Leads Inflation On a positive note, the Loop framework also tells us that the Fed will eventually ease policy in response to tighter financial conditions and this will allow the risk-on rally to resume. While this is undoubtedly true, the Fed's breaking point is also a lot higher when inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This is why we have repeatedly stressed that our cyclical call on spread product hinges on the path of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates.2 Chart 4No Correction Here Last year, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was down around 1.6% - well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation anchored around the Fed's target - the market understood that the Fed's tolerance for tighter financial conditions was quite low. This made it very difficult for risk assets to sell off meaningfully. But now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2.05% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rate at 2.27%, the Fed can clearly tolerate more market pain. The bad news from a cyclical perspective is that, despite the equity correction, the market's assessment of inflationary pressure in the economy has barely budged. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm, as are the prices of crude oil and other commodities - prices that tend to correlate with TIPS breakeven rates (Chart 4).3 In other words, last week's correction didn't give our overweight spread product position any further room to run. While it may take a few more sessions, our sense is that the market and the Fed will hash out a new equilibrium in the near-term and that the true bear market in risk assets won't occur until inflationary pressures are even more pronounced. We continue to look for a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates before we scale back our cyclical overweight exposure to spread product. The inflation data take on extra significance between now and then, as each incoming report will help confirm or deny the message priced into TIPS breakevens. Every weak inflation print buys the credit cycle more time, every strong print hastens its demise. Next up: tomorrow morning's CPI. Don't Fear Rising Rate Vol The return of volatility was the other big story last week. The VIX index of implied equity volatility was as low as 9 in early January, but stood at 33 as of last Friday's market close. With rising inflation starting to weaken the "Fed put" in risk assets we think it is unlikely that equity volatility will return to its previous cycle lows.4 But what about the volatility in rates markets? The MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility also jumped last week, and its path going forward is of critical importance for Treasury yields. Chart 5 shows that the Kim & Wright estimate of the term premium embedded in the 10-year Treasury yield is highly correlated with the MOVE index, while the expectations component implied by that term premium is the mirror image of the fed funds rate. It follows that a surge in rate volatility would lead to much higher Treasury yields, particularly if the Fed continues to hike. However, it would be quite unusual for the MOVE index to increase significantly while the Fed is lifting rates. To see this we can simply observe the tight correlation between the MOVE index and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). The crucial question then becomes: Does the slope of the yield curve drive volatility or does volatility drive the slope of the curve? Chart 5Volatility And The Term Premium Chart 6Volatility And The Yield Curve Like most things in economics, the answer is a little bit of both. Chart 7Forecasters In Agreement It is relatively straightforward to see why higher rate volatility might lead to a steeper yield curve. To the extent that the slope of the yield curve reflects a term premium to compensate investors for the extra price risk in a long-dated bond, then investors should demand greater compensation to bear that extra risk when rate volatility is elevated. But that analysis ignores the other reason why the yield curve might be steep. Namely, the yield curve might be steep because the market expects the Fed to hike rates substantially. It would seem logical to expect that investors would be more uncertain about a forecast that calls for many rate hikes than they would be about a forecast that calls for only a few rate hikes. It therefore follows that an environment where the market expects a large change in the fed funds would also be an environment of elevated rate volatility. The two-way causation between rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve is reinforced by the fact that both trends also correlate with forecaster uncertainty about the macro environment. Chart 7 shows that the dispersion of individual forecasts for the 3-month T-bill rate and GDP growth correlate with both the MOVE volatility index and the slope of the yield curve. At the moment, disagreement amongst professional forecasters remains low relative to history. All in all, our sense is that once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target fair value range of 2.4% to 2.5% they are unlikely to move much higher. Fed hawkishness will ramp up considerably and the yield curve will be much more likely to flatten. This means that while implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. We are not overly concerned about a huge spike in rate volatility leading to a blow-out in bonds. Two Attractive Ways To De-Risk As stated in the first section of this report, the higher that TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise the closer we get to calling the end of the credit cycle. If current trends continue, then it is likely we will begin to de-risk the spread product side of our recommended portfolio in the not-too-distant future. With that in mind, we have identified two lower risk spread sectors that are starting to look attractive. 1) Municipal Bonds Like all spread sectors, at first blush municipal bonds appear quite expensive relative to Treasuries. Chart 8 shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, relative to equivalent-maturity Treasury yields. The message is quite clear. Municipal bonds offer far less excess compensation relative to Treasuries than has been typical in the past. However, the valuation picture changes completely when we consider municipal bonds versus investment grade corporates. Chart 9 once again shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, but this time relative to equivalent-duration corporate bonds. We do not attempt to match credit quality in Chart 9, so Aaa-rated municipal bonds are being compared to the corporate bond index which has an average credit rating of A3/Baa1. Chart 8Munis Expensive Versus Treasuries Chart 9Munis Cheap Versus Corporates Chart 9 shows that after-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. In fact, a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond currently offers only 13 bps less yield than an equivalent duration A3/Baa1-rated corporate bond. In addition, whenever the after-tax yield on a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond has exceeded the yield on a 10-year corporate bond in the past, it has been a fairly good signal that investment grade corporates are too expensive and due for a correction. Not only did municipal bonds look more attractive than corporates before the crisis in 2007, but also before corporates sold off in 2011 and 2014 (Chart 9, bottom panel). Agency MBS Chart 10An Opportunity In MBS? As with munis, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds (Chart 10). Further, in a rising rate environment the risk of a large increase in mortgage refinancings is low and this should keep MBS spreads well contained. The biggest potential risk for MBS spreads is that a large spike in Treasury yields causes MBS duration to extend, and sparks a spread widening. In our report from two weeks ago we introduced a model for excess MBS returns in an attempt to quantify what sort of increase in Treasury yields would be necessary to make duration extension a meaningful risk for MBS.5 We modeled monthly excess returns for conventional 30-year MBS relative to duration-matched Treasuries using the following equation: Formula The monthly change in Treasury yields enters the equation with a positive sign because it proxies for refinancing risk. Higher yields lead to lower refis, and lower refis lead to MBS outperformance. The squared change in yields enters the equation with a negative sign because it proxies for extension risk. If yields rise too much during the month, then MBS duration will extend and the sector will underperform. Chart 11Refi Risk Is Low From that equation we calculated that, holding the change in OAS flat, it would take a monthly increase in yields of at least 72 bps to lead to negative monthly excess returns. However, in January this appeared not to work very well. The duration-matched Treasury yield in our equation increased only 38 bps in January and the OAS was virtually flat, but MBS still managed to underperform Treasuries by 16 bps on the month. Upon further investigation, the reason our model failed in January is that mortgage refinancings actually increased on the month even though Treasury yields rose (Chart 11). This behavior is unusual and we would not expect it to persist going forward. However, we also made one modification to our model that we expect will lead to more accurate results on a real-time basis. Specifically, we removed the intercept term from the prior model and replaced it with a 1-month lag of the average index OAS. The rationale is that since the intercept term is in the equation to capture the carry return in an MBS trade, we should use a more accurate measure of MBS carry rather than relying on the regression to calculate the historical carry. Our new equation is as follows: Formula Chart 12 Interestingly, using our new equation we find that the monthly increase in Treasury yields required to spark MBS underperformance is now a function of the current average OAS of the MBS index. This would seem to make sense. If the carry buffer is higher, then it should take a greater duration extension for capital losses to overcome the carry and lead to negative excess returns. The relationship between the required monthly increase in yields and the index OAS is illustrated in Chart 12. At the current average index OAS of 31 bps, our equation suggests that a monthly increase in Treasury yields of 58 bps or higher is required for extension risk to become meaningful. Bottom Line: Both municipal bonds and Agency MBS are starting to look attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds. We stand ready to upgrade these sectors at the expense of investment grade corporate bonds when the time comes to de-risk our spread product portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on the correlation between TIPS breakevens and commodity prices please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Return Of Vol", dated February 6, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights Japan Economy & Inflation: Japan is in the midst of a solid cyclical upturn, driven by strong exports and rising investment spending. Yet despite signs that the economy is running at an above-potential pace with no spare capacity in labor or product markets, inflation remains tame. This puts no immediate pressure on the Bank of Japan (BoJ) to move away from its easy policy stance. Future BoJ Options: When the BoJ does finally consider a shift in its monetary policy, the first thing it will do is raise its yield target on the 10-year JGB. Before doing that, three things must happen - yen weakness, higher core Japanese inflation and much higher non-Japanese global bond yields. Feature Chart 1A 'Non-Systemic' Vol Spike Global financial markets appear to be calming down a bit after the Great Volatility Scare of 2018. While the equity market sell-off and spike in volatility was intensely compacted into a brief period of time, the changes has been relatively modest when looked at against the broader history of the past decade (Chart 1). This may have been a serious market tremor, but it is not clear that this was the beginning of "The Big One." What could turn investor sentiment into a more permanently bearish state would be a sign of a coordinated move to tighter monetary policy by all the major global central banks. The Federal Reserve is in the midst of a prolonged tightening cycle, while the European Central Bank (ECB) is more openly debating the future of its asset purchase program. Yet amidst all the current investor worries about higher inflation and rising global bond yields, any sign that the hyper-easy BoJ is openly moving to a less accommodative monetary policy could be the trigger for the next wave of market volatility. The BoJ's current policy is to manage short-term interest rates and asset purchases to keep the benchmark 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yield around 0%. What would it take for the BoJ to make a change to that policy? In this Special Report, we take a look at the current cyclical dynamics for Japanese economic growth and inflation, and determine what it would take to force the BoJ to consider altering its current policy. We conclude that three things that must ALL happen before the BoJ could possibly change its strategy: The USD/JPY exchange rate must increase back to at least the 115-120 range Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5% The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus the 10-year U.S. Treasury Strong Japanese Growth, But Where's The Inflation? If it was strictly a growth story, the BoJ could have a case to begin formally removing monetary accommodation relatively soon. The Japanese economy is enjoying a broad-based upturn led by robust export demand and a pickup in capital spending (Chart 2). Private consumption and government spending have also provided smaller, but still positive, contributions to Japanese GDP growth in the current cycle. The BoJ stated in its latest Outlook for Economic Activity and Prices (January 2018) that Japan's economy has entered a virtuous cycle from income to spending that would support continued growth this year. The leading economic indicator estimated by Japan's Cabinet Office is expanding at a solid rate that suggests real GDP growth could accelerate to a well-above potential pace around 2.5% in 2018. The manufacturing PMI is now at the highest level in four years, while the December Tankan survey was the highest reading since Japan's asset bubble burst in the early 1990s. The cyclical upturn in growth has boosted corporate profits, business confidence and capital spending (Chart 3). This is especially so on the manufacturing side of the Japanese economy, where machinery orders and capacity utilization are at the highest levels in almost three years and the level of industrial production is now back to pre-crisis highs. The high level of capacity utilization is a boost both to the economy - through capital spending, as firms need to invest to keep up with underlying demand - and to corporate profits as companies can spread their fixed costs of production over more units sold. Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that Japanese business confidence is solid (bottom panel). Chart 2Lots Of Good Economic News In Japan Chart 3A Cyclical Rise In Production & Confidence Japan's economy remains highly levered to global growth, as the pickup in machinery orders has been focused on foreign demand (Chart 4, bottom panel). With the global leading economic indicator still in a steady uptrend, however, overall export growth should remain in good shape in the next few quarters. For most countries, a solid economic upturn like Japan is currently enjoying would potentially trigger some inflationary pressures. Alas, Japan is not most countries. Over the past several years, the BoJ has consistently projected that Japanese inflation will be on a path to reach its 2% target. That can be seen in Chart 5, which shows Japanese core CPI inflation (ex fresh food) with the annual forecasts produced by the BoJ each year (the dotted lines). Yet the only time that core inflation got remotely close to that level was in 2014 - and, only then, after global oil prices had breached the $100/bbl level. Inflation expectations momentarily rose at that time, but plunged in 2015 as oil prices collapsed. Since then, CPI swaps have struggled to trade much above 0%, only starting to perk up last year as oil prices began rising once again (bottom panel). Chart 4Japan Is Benefiting From##BR##Strong Global Growth Chart 5Watch Oil & The Yen,##BR##Not The BoJ Inflation Forecasts Having inflation consistently below its target rate is frustrating to the BoJ. By its own estimates, Japan's output gap closed in 2016 and now sits at +1.35% - levels that have been consistent with headline CPI inflation rates of 2% or greater since the mid-1980s (Chart 6, top panel). Our own Japan headline CPI diffusion index, which measures the breadth of the moves in inflation across ten CPI sectors, is struggling to stay above the 50 line, unlike those previous periods where Japan had a large positive output gap. The main reason for this is that Japanese service sector inflation, consisting of around ½ of the total Japanese CPI index, remains anemic at 0.8% or a massive 2.3 percentage points below the rate of goods inflation (bottom panel). The odds of the BoJ successfully seeing Japanese inflation reach its target are low without any meaningful pickup in services inflation. The latter requires a boost to household purchasing power, which is next to impossible without faster wage growth. One of the fundamental reasons for Japan's low inflation continues to be the surprising lack of wage inflation despite strong Japanese profitability and a very tight labor market. Japanese firms are enjoying an extended period of robust earnings growth, with corporate profits up nearly 500% since the trough during the 2009 recession (Chart 7, top panel). Moreover, firms have not been cutting back on labor over that period. The jobs-to-applicant ratio has steadily climbed and is now at the highest level since 1974, and while the annual rate of employment growth remains well above the historical average (2nd panel). The result is an unemployment rate that is currently at 2.8%, well below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU at 3.6% (3rd panel). Yet despite firms remaining desperate to hire new employees to fill empty or newly created positions, at a time when there is no spare labor capacity, wage growth remains stagnant. Nominal wage growth is only 0.6%, or -0.6% in real terms. The problem of low real wage growth is not unique to Japan, of course (bottom panel), but it is unusual given how far the Japanese unemployment rate is below NAIRU. The subject of persistent low wages has become an important political matter for Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, given that breaking Japan out of its low inflation trap has become critical to the long-term success of his "Abenomics" program. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy discussed this exact topic in a Special Report published last week, noting that: Wages will be a decisive factor in Abe's economic success .... In this spring's "shunto" negotiations between businesses and unions, both the Abe administration and Keidanren, the top business group, are asking for 3% wage increases. The biggest union, Rengo, is only asking for one percentage point more. Abe has dedicated the current Diet session, beginning January 22, to "work-style reforms" that should be, on net, positive for wage growth. He wants to remove disparities between regular and irregular workers, particularly regarding wages, training opportunities, and welfare benefits. He also wants to impose limits on the workweek - putting a cap on the average 80-hour workweek of Japan's full-time workers so as to force companies to hire more irregular workers on a full-time basis (and to encourage employed people to have children). Companies that raise wages by 3% or more will see a cut in the corporate tax rate from around 30% to 25%.1 If Abe is successful in convincing Japanese companies to boost wages, this can help broaden the current cyclical economic upturn in Japan through faster consumer spending. Consumption has lagged other more robust parts of the economy during the current cycle (Chart 8, top panel), even though consumer confidence has surged in response to the healthy labor market (middle panel). Real disposable income growth has been unable to exceed 1% since 2010, a problem for consumer spending that has been exacerbated by the five percentage point rise in the household saving rate since 2013 (bottom panel). Chart 6Domestic Inflation,##BR##Like Services, Is Anemic Chart 7Japanese Companies##BR##Are Not Sharing The Wealth Chart 8Poor Fundamentals For##BR##The Japanese Consumer Putting it all together, the Japanese economy is in good shape, but inflation continues to undershoot the BoJ's goals. Bottom Line: Japan is in the midst of a solid cyclical upturn, driven by strong exports and rising investment spending. Yet despite signs that the economy is running at an above-potential pace with no spare capacity in labor or product markets, inflation remains tame. This puts no immediate pressure on the BoJ to move away from its easy policy stance. Plausible Next Steps For The BoJ The BoJ is in a difficult spot at the moment. The underwhelming pace of inflation is forcing the central bank to continue committing to its aggressive monetary easing programs, which include large-scale purchases of Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) and Japanese equities via ETFs. Yet the BoJ already shifted from a quantity target for its JGB purchases to a price target back in September 2016 when it introduced the "Yield Curve Control" (YCC) element to its overall Quantitative & Qualitative Easing (QQE) program. By switching to a price level on the 10-year, the BoJ was aiming to reduce the amount of JGBs it was buying from 80 trillion yen per year to whatever level was required to keep the 10-year yield at 0%. After switching to the YCC framework, the growth in the BoJ's JGB holdings slowed sharply to a pace that is now below the pace of new JGB issuance for the first time since the QQE program started in 2013 (Chart 9). It is no coincidence that the peak in the pace of BoJ buying coincided with the cyclical trough in our own BoJ Central Bank Monitor, which suggests that tighter monetary policy is now required in Japan (top panel). The BoJ has been successful in keeping the 10-year JGB yield near its 0% target, but that outcome will be operationally harder to achieve in the future. The BoJ currently holds about 70% of all 10-year JGBs outstanding, and the increase in ownership has risen by 5-7% in each quarter (Chart 10). In other words, if this pattern lasts, without a major increase in issuance at that maturity, the BoJ will effectively own all the 10-year JGBs outstanding by the middle of 2019. Already, the BoJ owns around 43% of the entire stock of JGBs, draining liquidity away from the market for the risk-free asset (government bonds) that is needed by Japanese banks and major investors like pension funds and insurance companies (Chart 11). Chart 9BoJ Has Already 'Tapered'##BR##Its Bond Purchases Chart 10The BoJ Is Cornering##BR##The JGB Market With the BoJ unwilling to continue impairing the liquidity in the JGB market, it will be forced to consider alternatives to its current YCC program settings. Last week, the Japanese government nominated BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda for another five-year term as the head of the central bank. Kuroda has received the full trust from PM Abe in his handling of monetary policy. However, maintaining the current monetary policy has some limitations. What can the BoJ realistically do? Until realized inflation reaches the BoJ target, there can be no shift to a less accommodative monetary policy involving a full tapering of asset purchases or interest rate increases. Yet the BoJ cannot continue to buy bonds at the current pace without essentially "cornering the market" for 10-year JGBs. The solution that would be the least disruptive, in our view, would be increasing the YCC yield target from the current 0%. It has been rumored over the past year that the BoJ would consider raising that yield curve target, although that idea has been repeatedly shot down by Governor Kuroda - no surprise, given how far inflation is from the BoJ target. The BoJ has been already been effectively "tapering" by buying fewer bonds under YCC than QQE. An explicit announcement to reduce the pace of bond buying, however, would be taken as a hawkish sign by the markets. Just ask the ECB, who is dealing with its own communication problems with the markets as it tries to prepare for the inevitable exit from its bond buying program. Explicitly raising the yield curve target would only be an option for the BoJ if it felt that a) the domestic economy could tolerate some increase in longer-term bond yields; b) Japanese inflation was likely to reach (or even surpass) the BoJ's 2% target; and c) the global economy was strong enough to push global bond yields to a sustained higher trajectory. We see the following as being a necessary "checklist" of events that must occur before the BoJ would even contemplate a more to a higher target on the 10-year JGB yield (Chart 12): Chart 11JGB Ownership Shares##BR##By Investor Category Chart 12These Must ALL Happen Before##BR##The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must increase back to at least the 115-120 range The recent rise in the yen versus the U.S. dollar has flied in the face of interest rate differentials that should be highly supportive of the U.S. dollar (top panel). This is not the only currency pair where this has happened, of course, but it matters far more for Japan given the low readings on headline inflation. A strengthening yen makes a difficult job - boosting Japanese inflation sustainably to 2% - almost impossible. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5% This is fairly obvious, but the BoJ cannot be confident that its 2% inflation target can be reached if core inflation continues to muddle along at levels well below that target. If wage growth were to also rise at the same time and pace as core inflation, both within hailing distance of 2%, then the BoJ would be even more convinced that some modest change to its yield target was required. 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries Table 1JGB Yield Model Or put more simply, global bond yields must rise by enough for the BoJ to say that there has been a shift in the global growth/inflation backdrop, justifying a structurally higher level of bond yields. The BoJ could then point to non-Japanese factors as the reason to bump up the target for 10-year JGB yields. We can evaluate this using the BoJ's own model for the 10-year JGB yield that was introduced back in 2016 (Table 1). This model includes Japanese potential GDP growth, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and the share of JGBs owned by the BoJ (along with "dummy variables" to identify the dates of the BoJ's QQE and negative interest rate policy). In the bottom two panels of Chart 12, we show a scenario that would lower the residual of the model (i.e. how far JGB yields are below fair value) to the same extremes seen during the QQE era since 2013. That would require a move in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to 3.5% AND an increase in the BoJ ownership share of the entire stock of JGBs to 50%. That would increase the fair value of the 10-year JGB yield to 0.18%, leaving the current yield around 10bps too expensive. Importantly, all three items in our checklist would have to happen at the same time for the BoJ to contemplate any shift in its yield curve target. That is especially true for USD/JPY. Japan would face considerable international pressure if the yen was held at undervalued levels by an overly accommodative BoJ policy that was no longer needed with Japanese inflation approaching the 2% target. What are the odds of all three of these items in our checklist being reached in 2018? Quite low, perhaps no more than 20%. For that reason, we do not see the BoJ being a new reason for frazzled global investors to worry about another spike in volatility. Bottom Line: When the BoJ does finally consider a shift in its monetary policy stance, the first thing it will do is raise its yield target on the 10-year JGB. Before doing that, three things must happen - yen weakness, higher core Japanese inflation and much higher non-Japanese global bond yields. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead", dated February 7th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Relentless selling in utilities stocks is overdone and we are compelled to lift exposure to neutral. Operating metrics have turned the corner for the better, but a still challenging macro backdrop suggests that it is too soon to boost to an overweight stance. A rising interest rate backdrop, the sinking Cyclical Macro Indicator and near collapse in our sales growth model along with high chances of a profit margin squeeze, suggest that telecom services stocks are a sell. Recent Changes S&P Utilities - Upgrade to neutral for a gain of 15%. S&P Telecom Services - Downgrade to underweight, and add to high-conviction underweight list today. S&P Utilities - Removed from high-conviction underweight list last week for a gain of 18%.1 S&P Semiconductor Equipment - Removed from high-conviction underweight list last week for a gain of 20%.2 S&P Homebuilding - Removed from high-conviction underweight list last week for a gain of 10%.3 Feature Chart 1Time To Start 'Buying The Dip' Panic selling persisted last week, and equities struggled for direction, as the battle between liquidity withdrawal and stellar profit growth rages on. As we wrote in a recent report, the market will test the new Fed Chairman's resolve and this must have been an unnerving first week for Powell at the helm of the Fed.4 The 10% tactical pullback that we had been flagging in recent publications with the tech sector correctly sniffing it out has materialized, and our strategy is to start "buying the dip" as we do not foresee recession in the coming 9-12 months. While an undershoot cannot be ruled out given the emotional nature of recent market action, a number of indicators we track suggest that it would be a mistake to get extremely bearish at the current juncture. First and foremost, empirical evidence suggests that investors with a cyclical 9-12 month investment horizon should start to buy this correction (Chart 1). We analyzed SPX data back to the early-1960s and identified daily falls of 4% or more. There have been 16 such occurrences. In our sample we excluded the 1982 and 2015 incidents that rounded up to 4%, but were a hair below that level. For 1987 we included only one datapoint for the Black Monday crash and omitted occurrences very close to that date. Similarly, in the autumn of 2008 we only used the first large daily decline in our study and excluded other sizable downdrafts that were clustered around Lehman's collapse. We decided to exclude such clustered datapoints as they would skew our results to the upside. This analysis clearly demonstrates that it pays to "buy the dip" (top panel, Chart 1), and on average the SPX rises roughly 14% in the ensuing 12 months following the steep daily pullback (bottom panel, Chart 1). Interestingly, within a few weeks of the mini-crash empirical evidence suggests that markets typically retest those beaten-down levels and tend to hold above them. The implication is that investors have some time to deploy cash and/or reposition portfolios in order to take advantage of the recent pullback. Second, credit spreads have been surprisingly quiet. Bond spreads across the risk spectrum are extremely sensitive to risk off phases and one would have expected a sharp widening in spreads during the recent turmoil (fourth panel, Chart 2A). Chart 2ANo Systemic Risk Evident Chart 2BLatent Buying Power Third, the U.S. dollar has remained muted despite recent stock market jitters. A soft greenback is purely redistributive and represents a boost to global growth (third panel, Chart 2A). Fourth, short equity market positions are pinned near all-time highs representing latent dry powder (Chart 2B). Fifth, the VIX has gone vertical surging beyond the 50 level. Both the jump in the VIX and the explosion in trading volumes signal that capitulation was likely hit (second panel, Chart 2A). Finally, the recent market swoon along with rising EPS estimates have knocked down valuations pushing them to a 16 handle on a 12-month forward P/E basis (bottom panel, Chart 2A). In other words, all these indicators suggest that the bulk of the selling may have already occurred, and an absorption/consolidation phase will likely take place in the next few weeks. In fact, the recent let-up of soft data and simultaneous perkiness of hard data also corroborates that a lateral move is in the cards for the broad market (Chart 3). Chart 3Consolidation Phase Ahead We are willing to ride out the volatility and selectively look for opportunities to put cash to work, given our view that the longevity of the business cycle remains intact. Our core strategy remains to stay heavily focused on financials and industrials that benefit from our two key 2018 themes: higher interest rates and synchronized global capex upcycle. The energy sector also provides excellent value and a positive cyclical earnings outlook, based on BCA's upbeat crude oil view and rising odds of a virtuous capex upcycle. Meanwhile, health care remains our core defensive sector underweight. This sector still has to contend with political backlash against its multi-decade resilient selling price backdrop. With regard to the niche fixed income proxies, we are making a small tweak this week lifting the bombed-out utilities sector to neutral from underweight and locking in gains of 15% since inception. We are also downgrading defensive telecom stocks from neutral to underweight. Enough Is Enough In Bombed-Out Utilities In mid-summer we downgraded utilities to a below benchmark allocation, and subsequently on November 27th we were compelled to add it to our 2018 high-conviction underweight list, doubling down on our bearishness toward this fixed income proxy sector. These moves have paid handsome dividends and added alpha to our portfolio. Last week we crystalized gains by obeying our trailing stop that got triggered on our high-conviction list, registering 18% gains for the utilities underweight call. And, today we recommend an upgrade to a neutral stance to the niche S&P utilities sector, booking 15% gains since the July 24th inception, as indiscriminate selling has gone way too far in our opinion. Chart 4 shows that relative utilities performance has hit rock-bottom, plumbing all-time lows. In fact, the relative share price ratio has been so downbeat that if history at least rhymes a temporary relief rebound is in sight. Such oversold levels in our composite technical indicator have marked previous troughs (bottom panel, Chart 5). Tack on a gap down in relative valuations right at the neutral zone, and the implication is that it does not pay to be bearish from current washed out relative share price levels. Chart 4Unloved... Chart 5...And Under-owned Utilities... On the operational front, nat gas prices are no longer reeling and should boost industry pricing power as they are the marginal price setter for utilities (top two panels, Chart 6). Electricity production is also staging a slingshot recovery. This demand increase should also underpin utilities selling prices. Resource utilization is on the rise, up roughly 700bps from the 2016 trough. Once again the removal of excess slack should at least put a floor under industry producer price inflation. Indeed, our utilities sector productivity proxy has caught on fire recently pushing four year highs as both industry output and employment restraint are aiding our gauge. The upshot is that sell side analyst pessimism has likely hit a trough (bottom panel, Chart 6). All of these positives signal that we should take a punt and boost exposure all the way to overweight, nevertheless a challenging macro backdrop keeps us on the sidelines for now. Chart 7 shows that utilities stocks are the mirror image of the global manufacturing PMI survey. In other words, relative share prices move inversely with the ebb and flow of global growth, showcasing their ultimate safe-haven status. Similarly, increasing capital outlays are negatively correlated with utilities stocks, and given our synchronized global growth and global capex themes, utilities have limited cyclical upside. Finally, this high dividend yielding sector also suffers when Treasury bond yields shoot higher, as competing risk free assets become more appealing. Higher interest rates is one of BCA's key 2018 themes, and any resumption of the 10-year Treasury selloff will continue to weigh on relative performance (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 6...Are Coming Back To Life... Chart 7...But Do Not Get Carried Away Netting it all out, relentless selling in utilities stocks is overdone and we are compelled to lift exposure to neutral. Operating metrics have turned the corner for the better, but a still challenging macro backdrop suggests that it is too soon to boost to an overweight stance. Bottom Line: Take profits of 15% and lift the S&P utilities sector to a benchmark allocation. Trim Telecom Services To Underweight We are filling the void from the upgrade in the S&P utilities sector by downgrading the S&P telecom services sector to underweight, and also adding it to the high-conviction underweight list. This defensive sector swap preserves our bearishness toward safe haven assets as both sectors have a similar weight in the SPX. Three main reasons are behind our dislike for this fixed income proxy sector: BCA's 2018 rising interest rate theme Both our Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) and our sales model send a distress signal A profit margin squeeze is looming The top panel of Chart 8 shows that high dividend yielding telecom services stocks and the 10-year yield are nearly perfectly inversely correlated. In fact, telecom services stocks are prime beneficiaries of disinflation/deflation and vice versa (bottom panel, Chart 8). BCA's bond market view remains that the 10-year yield will continue to rise on the back of rising inflation expectations, and this represents a bearish backdrop for the telecom services sector. Our CMI has melted and relative consumer outlays on telecom services have also taken a nosedive (top two panels, Chart 9), warning that revenue growth will be hard to come by for telecom carriers. In fact, while nearly all of the GICS1 sectors have come out of the top line growth lull of late-2015/early-2016, telecom services sales growth has relapsed. Worrisomely, our S&P telecom services revenue growth model remains deep in contractionary territory, waving a red flag (bottom panel, Chart 9). Still steeply deflating selling prices are a major headwind for the sector's top and bottom line growth prospects and coupled with a still expanding wage bill, suggest that a profit margin squeeze is looming (fourth panel Chart 10). Chart 8No Dial Tone Chart 9Models Say Shy Away Chart 10Looming Margin Squeeze The sell side analyst community does not share this dire earnings picture. Net earnings revisions have gone vertical likely on the back of the recent tax reform. However, increasing industry slack underscores that beyond any one time gains from a lower corporate tax rate, organic EPS growth will be anemic at best. In fact, telecom services weekly hours worked do an excellent job of forecasting the sector's net earnings revision ratio and the current message is grim for profits (bottom panel, Chart 10). Adding it up, a rising interest rate backdrop, the sinking CMI and near collapse in our sales growth model along with high chances of a profit margin squeeze, suggest that a fresh bear phase is likely in the S&P telecom services sector. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P telecom services sector to a below benchmark allocation. We are also adding it to our high-conviction underweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, CTL. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight, "Stocks Take An Escalator Up, And An Elevator Down," dated February 7, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight, "Housekeeping In Turbulent Times," dated February 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ibid. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Market Test Powell?" dated November 13, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Risk management is important in tumultuous times. Our long held strategy of how to navigate choppy waters during a tactical correction has been to book gains in pair trades and thus de-risk the portfolio, and institute trailing stops to the high-flyers in our high-conviction call list. Two additional high-conviction underweight calls got stopped out recently with hefty gains for our portfolio: 10% for our underweight call on homebuilders and 20% for our underweight call in semi equipment stocks. We are obeying both stops and taking profits by removing them from the high-conviction underweight list. Nevertheless, the spiking lumber prices, surging interest rates and tax reform trifecta is still, at the margin, weighing on homebuilders. Therefore, we continue to recommend an underweight stance in this niche consumer discretionary industry. Similarly, while our underweight conviction level is not as high for semiconductor equipment stocks as on November 27, 2017, we continue to recommend a below benchmark allocation to this highly cyclical industry. Rising interest rates, a key BCA theme for 2018 is working against last year's stellar performers with growth stocks (semi equipment equities included) suffering a valuation derating. Bottom Line: Crystalize profits of 20% and 10% in chip equipment and homebuilding stocks, respectively, and remove from the high-conviction underweight list. We continue to recommend a below benchmark allocation in both indexes. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P semi equipment and S&P homebuilders indexes are: AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, and LEN, DHI, PHM, respectively.

Special Report

Dear Client, Wednesday, we sent you a Special Report by our Global Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin titled: The Return of Vol, which fleshed out BCA's view on the recent volatility spike and the associated market selloff. BCA believes that markets are realizing that U.S. inflation is not forever dead. As such, market volatility is set to rise, even if global equities can make new highs. From an FX perspective, a rise in U.S. inflation, especially when accompanied by the kind of spending programs announced this week in Washington DC, could result in a period of strength for the U.S. dollar. Additionally, since financial markets tend to experience clusters of volatility, the recent bout of volatility can stay in place for a while. High volatility tends to be negative for carry trades, hence EM currencies could suffer this quarter. The Australian dollar and the euro could also decline under this scenario. However, the yen and CHF may experience upside, but mostly against other currencies than the greenback. In this present report, we are updating our views on the G10 central banks. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Feature In our Special Report published last summer titled "Who Hikes Next?" we examined which of the G10 central banks would be next to join the Federal Reserve on its tightening path.1 Seven months later, we now know that the Bank of Canada and, to a lesser extent, the Bank of England, were respective second and third to begin raising their own policy rates. It is now time to revisit the topic and see which central banks are most likely to adjust their policy further. As Chart 1 shows, global goods prices have picked up steam, which has been translated in an ebbing of global deflationary forces. A few factors lie behind this improvement. First, China is not exporting deflation around the world anymore because the trade-weighted yuan has been stable and producer price inflation, which currently stands at 5%, has been in positive territory for 15 straight months. Second, thanks to ebullient global growth, global capacity utilization has grown significantly. Third, oil prices have climbed further. This development has been particularly meaningful as it has contributed to a significant pick-up in market-based inflation expectations. But as in every economic cycle, some risks are worth monitoring. As we have highlighted before, global money growth has slowed, Chinese monetary conditions have tightened meaningfully and Asian manufacturing activity has decelerated in a wide swath of countries. Even BCA's Global Capex Indicator (Chart 1, bottom panel), which flashed an unabashed green light last June, has begun to roll over. The recent market shakeup has also reminded investors that higher bond yields do have an impact on asset prices and economic growth. Despite these worries, we expect more central banks to join the fray this year and begin removing accommodation one way or another. Others will shy away, but they will guide markets toward expecting less monetary accommodation next year. Finally, some central banks will likely stand pat, and will leave their policy settings unchanged. Chart 2 illustrates where we think G10 central banks stand in their respective hiking cycles. Chart 1The Reasons Why Central Banks Are Tightening Chart 2G10 Central Banks Map The Hikers 1) The U.S. Chart 3U.S. The Federal Reserve will continue to tighten policy this year. To begin with, its communications on the topic have been extremely clear: the Federal Open Market Committee wants to increase interest rates three times in 2018. The Fed has good reasons for this hawkish stance. The gap between the real policy rate and the recent average of real GDP growth remains in stimulative territory (Chart 3). Meanwhile, U.S. financial conditions have rarely been easier, yet the economy is receiving a boost thanks to tax cuts and spending increases. There is, therefore, little mystery as to why survey data point to healthy GDP growth for the first half of 2018. In fact, the Atlanta Fed GDPnow model currently forecasts a growth rate of 4.0% for the first quarter of this year. This is an inflationary combination. It is not just growth conditions that are creating tailwinds for the Fed. Resource utilization is also elevated. According to the CBO, the U.S. output gap closed last year, and the unemployment rate not only stands at its lowest level in 17 years, but it is also well below equilibrium. We are already seeing the symptoms of this state of affairs: the employment cost index is growing at 2.6%/annum, its highest rate in three years; the growth of average hourly earnings just hit 2.9%/annum, and even core inflation is bottoming. These developments will give comfort to the Fed that hiking rates three times this year is the right strategy. The Hikers 2) Canada Chart 4Canada The Bank of Canada has already increased rates three times since we first explored this topic last summer. Like the Fed, the BoC has strong justification behind its hawkish stance. While the policy rate is not as stimulative as it was last year, capacity utilization has become much tighter (Chart 4). The unemployment rate is now back in line with its underlying equilibrium, and the BoC's Business Outlook Survey shows that the quantity and intensity of labor shortages have become elevated, which has historically led to higher wages. Additionally, the OECD's approximation of the output gap has closed, something also acknowledged by the BoC's models. Core inflation has begun to respond, rising to 1.5% in December. The current backdrop suggests this trend has further to go. Moreover, as exports to the U.S. represent 20% of Canada's GDP, the economic vigor south of the border will only translate into further inflationary pressures up north. Based on these factors, we expect the BoC to increase rates as much as the Fed in 2018. This view is not without risks. NAFTA negotiations remain rocky, and the uncertainty emanating from trade policy could hurt Canadian capex. Additionally, Canadian house prices remain 31% above fair value, Canadians sport a debt load of 170% of disposable income, and a growing array of macro-prudential measures are being implemented to slow the housing market. If this combination bites deeply - which remains to be seen - the BoC may be forced to, at least, pause its tightening policy faster than anticipated. Still Hiking? 3) The U.K. Chart 5U.K. On many metrics, the Bank of England looks set to hike again in 2018. There is no denying that British monetary policy remains extremely easy, as the gap between the real policy rate and real GDP growth is still in massively stimulative territory (Chart 5). Moreover, according to the OECD, the output gap stands at 0.4% of potential GDP. This observation seems to be corroborated by the fact that the unemployment rate remains nearly 1% below its equilibrium value. Adding credence to these assertions, U.K. core inflation spiked as high as 2.9% one month ago. However, make no mistake: the spike in inflation, while facilitated by tight supply conditions, is still mostly a consequence of the pass-through created by the pound's collapse in 2016. Because the rate of change of the pound has stabilized, the U.K.'s inflation rate will fall back to earth. Moreover, the outlook for British consumption is murky as the household savings rate has plunged to a mere 5.2% of disposable income, and debt growth is peaking. Corporations too have curtailed their borrowings, pointing to a weak capex outlook. While the MPC would like to hike once or twice this year, since a policy tightening is contingent on elevated inflation, the central bank may once again disappoint. For now, rate hikes look likely, but this may change if inflation decelerates sharply. In The Starting Blocs For 2018 4) Sweden Chart 6Sweden The December policy statement by the Riksbank highlighted that while the world's oldest central bank will reinvest the proceeds from redemptions and coupon payments from its large bond portfolio, it still expects to begin lifting its benchmark rate in the middle of 2018. This is not a minute too soon. Swedish monetary conditions are incredibly easy: Real interest rates are 6% below the average real GDP growth of the past three years (Chart 6). Moreover, Sweden is facing growing capacity constraints. The unemployment rate is nearly 1% below equilibrium, and according to the OECD, the output gap stands at 1.5% of GDP, the most positive number among the G10. The Riksbank's own capacity utilization measure - an excellent leading indicator of inflation - is at a 10-year high, pointing to further acceleration in a core inflation that is already very close to 2%. Additionally, Sweden is in the thralls of a massive real estate bubble, a byproduct of extremely loose monetary policy. The external environment will remain the main source of risk to this hawkish outlook. On the plus side, the European Central Bank has begun tapering its QE program and should end new purchases in September 2018. This limits how high the SEK can spike against the euro - the currency of Sweden's main trading partner - if the Riksbank tightens policy. However, Asian industrial production has slowed sharply, and Swedish PMIs are already buckling. Any deepening of the recent selloff in risk assets, especially if it spreads further into commodities, could cause Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves to retreat to his dovish safe place. In The Starting Blocs For 2019... Or 2018 5) New Zealand Chart 7New Zealand The Reserve Banks of New Zealand is slated to hike rates by mid-2019. However, risks are growing that the RBNZ could be forced into an earlier first hike. Policy is currently massively accommodating as the real official cash rate stands nearly 4% below the average real GDP growth of the past three years (Chart 7). At 1.4%, core inflation remains below the RBNZ's target, but it is on a rising trend, especially as the Kiwi economy is beyond full employment and the OECD's measure for New Zealand's output gap is at 0.8% of potential GDP. Moreover, GDP growth remains robust, and terms of trade have been improving as dairy prices are still firm, thus a further overheating in this economy is likely. The political front could also give impetus for the RBNZ to hike earlier than it recently suggested. The Ardern government has proposed increasing the minimum wage to NZ$20/hour by 2021, starting in April 2018. This could fuel already improving wages, and thus fan inflation. This government also plans to increase fiscal spending, which tends to exacerbate inflationary pressures when an economy is at full capacity. Thus, inflationary risks in New Zealand are skewed to the upside. In The Starting Blocs For 2019... Or 2018 6) Norway Chart 8Norway The Norges Bank anticipates it will begin to increase rates toward the middle of 2018. The Norwegian central bank is facing an interesting cross current. On the one hand, when compared with other nations on the list, the Norwegian economy seems less ripe to withstand higher rates. To begin with, because Norwegian core inflation has fallen precipitously in recent years, the gap between real interest rates and the average real GDP growth of the past three years has narrowed considerably (Chart 8). Moreover, the unemployment rate remains 0.9% above equilibrium, while a more broad-based measure of slack, the output gap, stands at -1.6% of potential GDP, at least according to the OECD. Moreover, core inflation only hovers near a 1.2% annual pace and is expected to stay below 2.5% in the coming years. Despite these negatives for Norway, some important positives also exist, which explains the Norges Bank's optimism. The Norwegian economy did not go through much of a financial crisis this cycle; as a result, Norwegian banks are healthy, and the Norwegian money multiplier never imploded as it did in other G10 countries. Also, the Norwegian krone is very cheap, adding a further reflationary impulse beyond low rates. Moreover, Norwegian GDP growth has experienced a rebound on the back of rallying oil prices. However, oil prices are nearing the top end of our energy strategists' forecasts, suggesting this tailwind is receding. Altogether, this confluence of factors suggests that similar to the RBNZ, the Norges Bank is likely to hike rates in early 2019 or late 2018. 2019 Take Off 7) Australia Chart 9Australia The Reserve Bank of Australia may well begin increasing interest rates in early 2019. Many factors would argue that the RBA could in fact increase interest rates earlier. Even though it is less accommodative than Sweden's or New Zealand's, Australian monetary policy is quite easy as the gap between the real policy rate and the average real GDP growth rate of the past three years is well into negative territory (Chart 9). Additionally, core inflation has rebounded hitting 1.9% recently, while trimmed-mean CPI stands at 1.8%. Among additional positives, Australia's national income is growing at a robust 4.3% annual pace and job creation is brisk, with payrolls expanding at an impressive 3.6% rate on a yearly basis. These positives mask some stiff headwinds. Rapid national income growth will likely peter out. It was the result of the very large rebound in the RBA's commodity price index, however, this benchmark, which was growing at a 53% annual rate in February 2017, is now contracting at a 1% annual rate. Additionally, the OECD's measure for the Australian output gap stands at -1.5%. While it is true that the unemployment rate is below its equilibrium rate, the RBA's labor underutilization measure remains near 25-year highs. This explains why robust job creation is not being translated into wage gains, and suggests that the RBA is right to expect trimmed-mean inflation to durably be at 2-2.25% only by the end of 2019. Moreover, the recent strength in the AUD will also weigh on inflation going forward. Netting out pros and cons suggests that the most likely first hike by the RBA will be in early 2019. 2019 Take Off 8) Euro Area Chart 10Euro Area The European Central Bank has begun tapering its QE program, and if the global economy does not experience any meaningful relapse, the ECB will end new purchases this September. However, a rate hike is not in the offing this year. To begin with, the ECB's communications on the topic have been rather clear: At its latest press conference, President Mario Draghi once again rejected any possibility of a move this year, and even Jens Weidmann, the Bundesbank's head, acknowledged that the current market pricing - a hike in the summer of 2019 - is about right. While it is true that the ECB's monetary policy setting is still very accommodative, the unemployment rate remains 0.8% above equilibrium, and outside of Germany, labor underutilization is still high. Moreover, the OECD's estimate of the euro area's output gap still stands at -0.5% of potential GDP (Chart 10). Another hurdle is core CPI which remains well below the ECB's objective; in fact, after hitting 1.2% in May, inflation excluding food and energy has now relapsed to 0.9%. Peripheral nations are experiencing even weaker inflation readings. With the ECB's inflation forecast still well below target until 2020, a rate hike will have to wait until next year. The Laggards 9) Switzerland Chart 11Switzerland The Swiss National Bank remains firmly among the lagging central banks within the G10. Because inflation is still at only 0.7%, the gap between real interest rates and average real GDP growth of the past three years is among the least stimulative in the G10 (Chart 11). Corroborating this observation, loan growth has averaged a paltry 4% over the course of the past three years. Moreover, the Swiss economy is still replete with excess capacity. The unemployment rate may be a low 3%, but it still stands 1.3% above equilibrium, and Swiss wage growth remains very depressed. Moreover, the OECD pegs the Swiss output gap at -1.2% of potential GDP. On a PPP basis, the Swiss franc remains 5% overvalued against the euro, Swiss core inflation was only 0.7% in December, but better than the -1% posted in early 2016. The SNB is likely to officially abandon its foreign asset purchases this year. The Swiss economy has recovered from its doldrums of the past several years, and most importantly, the euro crisis is now fully in the rearview mirror. This means that safe-haven flows out of the euro area, which were pushing the CHF to nosebleed valuation levels, have dried up. In fact, this year's weakness in the franc versus the euro was not accompanied by much increases in SNB sight deposits, suggesting this depreciation has been organic and not manufactured in Bern and Zurich. However, until core CPI moves closer to 2% and Swiss wages pick up, the SNB will likely lag the ECB when it comes to actual interest rate increases amid fears that the Swiss franc will rebound and tighten policy again. A late 2019 or early 2020 hike remains the most likely scenario. The Laggards 10) Japan Chart 12Japan The Bank of Japan is also faraway from increasing policy rates. This is not because the Japanese economy is replete with excess slack. It is not. The active job openings-to-applicants ratio stands at a whopping 44-year high, the unemployment rate is 0.8% below equilibrium and the OECD's estimate of the output gap is in positive territory (Chart 12). However, despite this very inflationary backdrop, inflation excluding food and energy remains a paltry 0.3%/annum. The BoJ has rightfully identified moribund inflation expectations as the key to unlocking this mystery. Decades of deflation have created a deflationary mindset among Japanese economic agents. As a result, wages and inflation itself are not experiencing much of a lift. The BoJ is tackling this issue head on, and has made it clear that it will not abandon its yield curve control strategy until inflation is well above its 2% target. In the BoJ's view, an inflationary overshoot is now necessary to shock deflationary mentalities, which will be the keystone to let inflation take off in durable fashion. For now, the tight negative relationship between Japanese financial conditions and inflation suggests the BoJ will do its utmost to contain the yen, which would undermine the progress made in recent quarters. As such, we do not foresee any rate hikes until well into 2019. QQE is likely to be abandoned first, as in practice the BoJ has not hit its JGB purchases target since the first half of 2016. Investment Implications The dollar could experience a further lift in the first half of 2018. Investors plunked the greenback last year and in the opening weeks of 2018 because they had been focusing on the far future - a future in which the ECB hikes rates faster than the Fed. But the reality remains that this year and next, the Fed will lift interest rates much more than the ECB. This means the euro is vulnerable to a pullback as it is very expensive relative to differentials at the front end of the curve. The outlook for EUR/USD will improve again once we get closer to 2019. The CAD has niether much upside nor downside. Interest rate markets are pricing in as many interest rate increases as we are. The key for the CAD will once again be oil prices, but keep in mind that Brent prices are not far off from our energy strategists' target of US$67/bbl. The SEK and the NOK will likely experience upside versus the euro. Their central banks are also set to pull the trigger before the ECB. Moreover, these two currencies are very cheap. However, the ride is unlikely to be a smooth one. The budding slowdown in Asian manufacturing could generate temporary hiccups before yearend that will cause these extremely pro-cyclical currencies to swoon. The picture for the pound remains as murky as ever. On one hand, the BoE has begun to increase rates. However, this progress could run astray very easily if, as we expect, British inflation weakens anew. Moreover, Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU are far from fully settled. Further, the trade-weighted pound is moving toward the top end of its post-Brexit range, making it highly vulnerable to even a modest disappointment. The Australian dollar is likely to experience a poor 2018, as the RBA is a long way from increasing interest rates, and on all the long-term metrics we track, the AUD is one of the most expensive currencies. A continuation of the recent spat of asset market volatility could prove to be unkind to the Aussie. The kiwi will likely outperform its antipodean brethren as we see upside risk for interest rates in New Zealand. Finally, Swiss and Japanese interest rates will remain near current levels for a few more years. This suggests that the Swiss franc and the yen have little durable upside this year. The same holds true for the first half of 2019. However, since Switzerland and Japan still sport hefty current account surpluses and supersized positive net international investment positions, the CHF and JPY will continue to behave as safe-haven currencies, rallying when global asset prices weaken. This means that since markets tend to experience volatility clusters, the recent bout of market volatility could continue, which will help both the Swiss franc and the yen over the coming weeks. This will be especially true if the CHF and JPY are bought against the EUR, AUD, CAD, and NZD. But beware: the yen is especially cheap, so any signs that inflation expectations of Japanese agents pick up could be associated with a sharp rally in the yen, as it will spell imminent doom for the BoJ's YCC strategy. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades

While the S&P 500 has been struggling for direction and volatility has gone haywire, we continue to believe that "buy the dip" is the proper strategy for this latest market drawdown. Empirical evidence suggests that this is the proper strategy for investors with a cyclical 9-12 month investment horizon. We analyzed SPX data back to the early 1960s and identified daily falls of 4% or more. There have been 16 such iterations, and we excluded the 1982 and 2015 incidents that rounded up to 4%, but were a hair below that level. For 1987 we used one iteration for the black Friday crash, but omitted occurrences very close to that date, and another on for late November 1987. Similarly, in 2008 we only used the first iteration in September of that year for our study as a number of sizable downdrafts clustered around Lehman's collapse. We decided to exclude numerous close by iterations as it would skew our results to the upside. This analysis clearly demonstrates that it pays to "buy the dip" (top panel), and on average the SPX rises roughly 14% following the steep daily pullback in the ensuing 12 months (bottom panel). Interestingly, within a few weeks of the mini-crash empirical evidence suggests that markets typically retest those beaten down levels and tend to hold above them, suggesting that investors have some time to reposition portfolios and take advantage of the recent pullback. Stay tuned.