Emerging Markets

Highlights Rising non-OPEC production and the Trump administration's successful efforts at jawboning OPEC into increasing oil production - including a not-so-subtle threat that American protection of the Cartel's Gulf Arab producers would be withheld if production weren't ramped - will keep oil prices under pressure in 2H18. Markets could become chaotic in 2019: Iran's capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below in this Special Report written jointly by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy - cannot be dismissed. An extended closure of the Strait - our most dire scenario - could send prices on exponential trajectories: In one simulation, above $1,000/bbl. We are keeping our forecast for 2H18 Brent at $70/bbl, unchanged from June, and lowering our 2019 expectation by $2 to $75/bbl. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent. Rising geopolitical uncertainty will widen the range in which oil prices trade - i.e., it will lift volatility. Energy: Overweight. We are moving to a tactically neutral weighting, while maintaining our strategic overweight recommendation. We are closing our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread but are retaining long call-spread exposures in 2019 along the Brent forward curve. Base Metals: Neutral. Contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida copper mine are yet to be resolved. The union rejected BHP's proposal late last week, and threatened to vote for a strike unless substantial changes were made. Failure to reach a labor deal at the Escondida mine led to a 44-day strike last year, and an extension of the contract. This agreement expires at the end of this month. Precious Metals: Neutral. Increasing real rates in the U.S. and a stronger USD are offsetting safe-haven demand for gold, which is down 10% from its 2018 highs of $1360/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The Chinese agriculture ministry lowered its forecast for 2018/19 soybean imports late last week to 93.85 mm MT from 95.65 mm MT. This is in line with its adjustment to consumption this year, now forecast at 109.23 from 111.19 mm MT. Tariffs are expected to incentivize Chinese consumers to prefer alternative proteins - e.g., rapeseed - and to replace U.S. soybean imports with those from South America. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump jawboned OPEC Cartel members - particularly its Gulf Arab members - into raising production. This was accompanied with a none-too-subtle threat implying continued U.S. protection of the Gulf Arab states was at risk if oil production were not lifted.1 OPEC, particularly KSA, responded by lifting production and pledging to keep it at an elevated level. In addition, non-OPEC production growth has been particularly strong this year, and will remain so. These combined production increases will contribute to a modest rebuilding of inventories in 2H18, as markets prepare for the loss of as much as 1 MMb/d of Iranian oil exports beginning in November (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOECD Inventory##BR##Depletion Will Slow OECD Inventory Depletion Will Slow OECD Inventory Depletion Will Slow Chart 2Global Balances Will Loosen,##BR##As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Global Balances Will Loosen, As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Global Balances Will Loosen, As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Estimated 2H18 total OPEC production rose a net 130k b/d, led by a 180k b/d increase on the part of KSA, which will average just under 10.6 MMb/d in the second half of the year. Non-OPEC production for 2H18 was revised upward by 180k b/d in our balances models - based on historical data from the U.S. EIA and OPEC - led by the U.S. shales, which were up close to 700k b/d over 1Q18 levels. This led to a combined increase in global production of 310k b/d in 2H18. With demand growth remaining at 1.7 MMb/d y/y for 2018 and 2019, we expect the higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC sources to loosen physical balances in 2H18 (Chart 2 and Table 1).2 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic In and of itself, increased production will reverse some of the depletion of OECD inventories targeted by OPEC 2.0 in its effort to rebalance the market. All else equal, this would be bearish for prices. However, we are keeping our price forecast for 2H18 unchanged from last month - $70/bbl for Brent in 2H18 - and lowering our expectation for Brent to $75/bbl in 2019. This adjustment in next year's expectation reflects our belief that this round of increased production by OPEC 2.0 arguably is being undertaken specifically to rebuild storage ahead of the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. against Iran. Re-imposing sanctions unwinds a deal negotiated by the U.S. and its allies in 2015, which relaxed nuclear-related sanctions against Iran in exchange for commitments to scale back its involvement across the Middle East in the affairs of Arab states with restive Shia populations.3 The re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. against Iran has set off a round of diplomatic barbs and thrusts on both sides. President Trump declared he wanted Iran's oil exports to go to zero, which was followed by Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This set oil markets on edge, given that close to 20% of the world's oil flows through the Strait on any given day.4 Geopolitics Reasserts Itself In The Gulf Oil prices will become increasingly sensitive to geopolitical developments, particularly in the Gulf, now that the U.S. and its allies - chiefly KSA - and Iran and its allies are preparing to square off diplomatically, and possibly militarily. This will lead to a wider range in which oil will trade - i.e., we expect more significant deviations from fundamentally implied values, as markets attempt to price in highly uncertain outcomes to political events.5 Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below - will remain elevated post-sanctions being re-imposed, even if we only see threats to traffic through this most-important oil transit. Chart 3 shows that in periods when the error term of our fundamental econometric model increases, it typically coincides with higher implied volatilities. Specifically, the confidence interval around our fundamental-based price forecast widens in times of heightened uncertainty and volatility. The larger the volatility, the larger the squared deviation between our fitted Brent prices against actual prices.6 This indicates the probability of ending 2H18 exactly at our $70/bbl target is reduced as mounting upside - e.g. faster-than-expected collapse in Venezuelan crude exports, rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz or larger-than-expected Permian pipeline/production bottlenecks - and downside - e.g. escalating U.S.-Sino trade war tensions, increasing Libyan and Nigerian production - risks push the upper and lower bounds around our forecast further apart. Chart 3Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range This directly translates into a wider range in which prices will trade - uncertainty is high, and, while it is being resolved, markets will remain extremely sensitive to any information that could send prices on an alternative path (Chart 4). Chart 4Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Risks related to a closure of the Strait are not accounted for in our forecasts. However, given the magnitude of the risks implied by even the remote possibility of a closure, we expect markets will put a risk premium into prices. In an attempt to frame out price estimates from a short (10-day) and long (100-day) closure, we provide some cursory simulation results below.7 Can Iran Close The Strait Of Hormuz? The Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20% of global oil supply transits daily, is the principal risk that will keep markets hyper-vigilant going forward.8 A complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) would be the greatest disruption of oil production in history, three times more significant than the supply loss following the Islamic Revolution in 1979 (Chart 5). By our estimate, a 10-day closure at the beginning of 2H19 could pop prices by ~ $25/bbl. A 100-day closure could send prices above $1,000/bbl in our estimates. Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic Chart 5Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic So, the question naturally arises, can Iran's forces close the Strait? Iran's ability is limited by structural and military factors, but it could definitely impede traffic through the globe's most crucial energy chokepoint. There are two scenarios for the closure of the Strait: (i) Iran does so preemptively in retaliation to crippling economic sanctions; or (ii) Iran does so in retaliation to an attack against its nuclear facilities. Either scenario is possible in 2019, as the U.S. intends to re-impose sanctions against Iranian oil exports on November 9, a move that could lead to armed conflict if Iran were to retaliate (Diagram 1).9 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic SCENARIO I - Preemptive Closure In the past, Tehran has threatened to preemptively close the Strait of Hormuz whenever tensions regarding its nuclear program arose. The threats stopped in mid-2012, as U.S. and Iranian officials engaged in negotiations over the country's nuclear program. However, on July 4 of this year, Iran's nominally moderate President Hassan Rouhani pledged that Tehran would retaliate to an oil export embargo by closing the Strait. Rouhani's comments were reinforced on July 5 by the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, whose forces patrol the Strait, Mohammad Ali Jafari. Could Iran actually impede traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?10 Yes. Our most pessimistic scenario posits that Iran could close the waterway for about three or four months. This is based on three military capabilities: mines, land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and a large number of small boats for suicide-like attack waves. In our pessimistic scenario, we assume that Iran would be able to deploy about 700 mines and threaten the Strait by firing only one anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) operated via land-based batteries or ship per day, in order to prolong the threat.11 In that way, Iran could draw out the threat indefinitely. The length of closure is based on how long it would take the U.S. naval assets in the region to clear the mines, establish a Q-route - corridor within which the probability of hitting a mine is below 10% - and locate ASCM radars and batteries. The pessimistic scenario is unlikely to occur because of several countermeasures that the U.S. and its regional allies could employ - anti-mine operations, meant to clear a so-called Q route allowing safe passage of oil tankers under U.S. naval escort; punitive retaliation, which would inflict punitive damage on Iran's economy and infrastructure; and, lastly, Iran would not want to risk exposing its radar-guided anti-ship missiles to U.S. suppression of enemy air-defense (SEAD) operations that seek and destroy radars. Despite Iran's growing capability, we still posit that its forces would only be able to close the Strait of Hormuz for between three-to-four months. However, the more likely, "optimistic," scenario is that the closure itself lasts 7-10 days, while Iran then continues to threaten, but not actually close, the Strait for up to four months. It would be worth remembering that the U.S. has already retaliated against a potential closure, precisely 30 years ago. Midway through the Iran-Iraq war, both belligerents began attacking each other's tankers in the Gulf. Iran also began to attack Kuwaiti tankers after it concluded that the country was assisting with Iraq's war efforts. In response, Kuwait requested U.S. assistance and President Ronald Reagan declared in January 1987 that tankers from Kuwait would be flagged as American ships. After several small skirmishes over the following year, the USS Samuel B Roberts hit a mine north of Qatar. The mine recovered was linked to documents found by the U.S. during an attack on a small Iranian vessel laying mines earlier in 1987. The U.S. responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988. During the operation, which only lasted a day, the U.S. navy seriously damaged Iran's naval capabilities before it was ordered to disengage as the Iranians quickly retreated. Specifically, two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six gunboats were destroyed. The USS Wainwright also engaged two Iranian F-4s, forcing both to retreat after one was damaged. From this embarrassing destruction of Iran's naval assets, the country realized that conventional capabilities stood little chance against a far superior U.S. navy. As a result, Iran has strengthened its asymmetrical sea capabilities, such as the use of small vessels, and has made evident that the use of mines would be integral to its engagements with foreign navies in the Gulf. However, the switch to asymmetrical warfare means that Iran would likely threaten, rather than directly close, the Strait. From an investment perspective, the threat to shipping would have to be priced-in via higher insurance rates. According to research by the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center, the insurance premiums never rose above 7.5% of the price of vessel during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and actually hovered around 2% throughout the conflict. Rates for tankers docking in Somali ports, presumably as dangerous of a shipping mission as it gets, are set at 10% of the value of the vessel. A typical very large crude carrier (VLCC) is worth approximately $120 million. Adding the market value of two million barrels of crude would bring its value up to around $270 million at current prices. If insurance rates were to double to 20%, the insurance costs alone would add around $30 per barrel, $15 per barrel if rates stayed at the more reasonable 10%. This is without factoring in any geopolitical risk premium or direct loss of supply of Iran's output due to war. Bottom Line: Iran's military capabilities have increased significantly since the 1980s when it last threatened the shipping in the Strait. Iran has also bolstered its asymmetric capabilities since 2012, while the U.S. has largely remained the same in terms of anti-mine capabilities. If Iran had the first-mover advantage in our preemptive closure scenario, the most likely outcome would be that it could close the Strait for up to 10 days and then threaten to close it for up to four months in total. SCENARIO II - Retaliatory Closure A retaliatory closure is possible in the case of a U.S. (or Israeli) attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. Following from the military analysis of a preemptive closure, we can ascertain that a retaliatory closure would be far less effective. The U.S. would deploy all of its countermeasures to Iranian closure tactics as part of its initial attack. If Iran loses its first-mover advantage, it is not clear how it would lay the mines that are critical to closing the Strait. Iran's Kilo class submarines, the main component of a covert mine-laying operation, would be destroyed in port or hunted down in a large search-and-destroy mission that would "light up" the Strait of Hormuz with active sonar pings. The duration of the closure could therefore be insignificant, even non-existent. The only potential threat is that of Iran's ASCM capability. Iran would be able to use its ASCMs in much the same way as in the preemptive scenario, depending on the rate of fire and rate of discovery by U.S. assets. Bottom Line: It makes a big difference whether Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz preemptively or as part of a retaliation to an attack. The U.S. would, in any attack, likely target Iran's ability to retaliate against global shipping in the Persian Gulf. As such, Tehran's asymmetric advantages would be lost. Putting It All Together - Can Iran Close The Strait? Our three scenarios are presented in Table 2. Iran has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz for up to three-to-four months. That "pessimistic" scenario, however, is highly unlikely. The more likely scenarios are the "preemptive optimistic" and retaliatory scenarios. Table 2Closing The Strait Of Hormuz: Scenarios U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic Assessing the price implications of these scenarios is extremely difficult. Even though the "preemptive optimistic" and the "retaliatory" scenarios are short-lived, up to 20% of the world's daily demand would be removed from the market in the event the Strait of Hormuz was closed. Of course, the U.S. would release barrels from its 660mm-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) - likely the full maximum of 30 million barrels authorized under law, released over 30 days for a 1 MMb/d release - and Europe would also release ~ 1 MMb/d or so from its crude and product stocks. China likely would tap its SPR as well for 500k b/d. In addition, there is ~ 2 MMb/d of spare capacity in OPEC, which could be brought on line in 30 days (once the Strait is re-opened), and delivered for at least 90 days. How and when a closure of the Strait of Hormuz occurs cannot be modeled, since, as far as prices are concerned, so much depends on when it occurs, and its duration. For this reason, and the extremely low probability we attach to any closure of the Strait, we do not include these types of simulations in our analysis of the various scenarios we include in our ensemble. That said, it is useful to frame the range implied by the scenarios above. We did a cursory check of the impact of scenarios 1 and 2 above, in which we assume 19 MMb/d flow through the Strait is lost for 10 days and 100 days due to closure by Iran in July 2019. We assume this will be accompanied by a 2 MMb/d release from various SPRs globally. In scenario 1, the 10-day closure of the Strait lifts price by $25/bbl, and is resolved in ~ 2 months, with prices returning to ~ $75/bbl for the remainder of the year. In scenario 2, the Strait is closed for 100 days, and this sends prices to $1,500/bbl in our simulation. This obviously would not stand and we would expect the U.S. and its allies - supported by the entire industrialized world - would launch a powerful offensive to reopen the Strait. This would be extremely destructive to Iran, which is why we give it such a low probability. Bottom Line: While the odds of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz are extremely low - to the point of not being explicitly modeled in our balances and forecasts - framing the possible outcomes from the scenarios considered in this report reveals the huge stakes involved. A short closure of 10 days could pop prices by $25/bbl before flows are restored to normal and inventory rebuilt, while an extended 100-day closure could send prices to $1,500/bbl or more. Because the latter outcome would result in a massive offensive against Iran - supported by oil-consuming states globally - we view this as a low-probability event. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 President Trump's tweets calling for higher oil production have consistently been directed at the original OPEC Cartel, as seen July 4: "The OPEC monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!" Since the end of 2016, we have been following the production and policy statements of OPEC 2.0, the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 We will be exploring the rising risks to our demand projections in future research. Still, we are in broad agreement with the IMF's most recent assessment of global economic growth, which remains at 3.9% p.a. Please see "The Global Expansion: Still Strong but Less Even, More Fragile, Under Threat," published July 16, 2018, on the IMF's blog. 3 We discuss this at length in the Special Report we published with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy on June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 In an apparent recognition of what it would mean for world oil markets if Iran's exports did go to zero - particularly with Venezuela so close to collapse, which could take another 800k b/d off the market - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced waivers to the sanctions would be granted, following Trump's remarks at the beginning of July. See "Pompeo says US could issue Iran oil sanctions waivers" in the July 10, 2018, Financial Times. The Trump administration, however, is keeping markets on their toes, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling the U.S. Congress, "We want people to reduce oil purchases to zero, but in certain cases, if people can't do that overnight, we'll consider exceptions." See "Iran sues US for compensation ahead of re-imposition of oil sanctions," published by S&P Global Platts on July 17, 2018, on its spglobal.com/platts website. 5 Technically, this means the confidence interval around the target is now wider, which implies high probability of going above $80/bbl as well as the probability of going under $70/bbl. Still, the 2019 risks are skewed to the upside, in our view. 6 Given that our model is based solely on a variety of fundamental variables - i.e. supply-demand-inventory - the deviations can be interpreted as movements in the risks premium/discount. 7 This exercise does not include any estimate of oil flows through KSA's East-West pipeline, and possible exports therefrom. The rated capacity of the 745-mile line is 5 MMb/d, possibly 7 MMb/d. KSA's Red Sea loading capacity and the capacity of the Suez Canal and Bab el Mandeb under stress - i.e., the volumes either can handle with a surge of oil-tanker traffic - is not considered either. 8 This is the U.S. EIA's estimate. The EIA notes that in 2015 the daily flow of oil through the Strait accounted for 30% of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids. Natural gas markets also could be affected by a closure: In 2016, more than 30% of global liquefied natural gas trade transited the Strait. Please see "Three important oil trade chokepoints are located around the Arabian Peninsula," published August 4, 2017, at eia.gov. 9 We encourage our clients to read our analysis of potential Iranian retaliatory strategies, penned by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Analysis of Iran's military strategy and U.S. counterstrategy used in this paper relies on research from three heavily cited papers. Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press are skeptical of Iran's ability to close the Strait in their paper titled "Protecting 'The Prize': Oil and the National Interest," published in Security Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, 2010. Caitlin Talmadge gives Iran's capabilities far more credit in a paper titled "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz," published in International Security Vol. 33, No. 1, Summer 2008. Eugene Gholz also led a project at the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law that published an extensive report titled "The Strait of Hormuz: Political-Military Analysis of Threats to Oil Flows." 11 In the Strauss Center study, the most likely number is 814 mines, if Iran had a two-week period to do so covertly. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 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. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B (Cont.) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Duration Checklist: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is still warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekStagflation Keeping Yields Afloat Stagflation Keeping Yields Afloat Stagflation Keeping Yields Afloat Developed market bond yields are lacking direction at the moment, pulled by competing forces. Overall global economic activity has lost some momentum and is now less synchronized. Yet the majority of major countries in the developed world are still growing at an above-potential pace that is keeping unemployment low and slowly boosting wages. This is helping underpin inflation, both realized and expected, while keeping government bond yields elevated despite increasing concerns about the future path of the global economy (Chart of the Week). The growing worries about a potential "U.S. versus the world" trade war are weighing on growth expectations, although not yet by enough to cause a meaningful pullback in global equity markets which remain supported by current solid earnings growth. Credit spreads have increased for both developed market corporate debt, but are still at historically narrow levels suggesting that investors are not overly concerned about default/downgrade risk. Emerging market (EM) debt has seen more significant spread widening in recent months, with a stronger U.S. dollar playing a large role there, but there has been little spillover from weaker EM markets into developed market credit valuations. We recently downgraded our recommended allocation to global corporate debt to neutral, while also upgrading our weighting on government bonds to neutral. Yet we maintained our below-benchmark overall duration stance, given our view that bond markets were still underpricing the potential for faster global inflation and tighter monetary policies given the persistent underlying strength of economic growth (especially in the U.S.). In light of that change in our view, an update of one of more reliable tools over the past eighteen months - our Duration Checklist - is timely. The Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish We have maintained our strategic below-benchmark stance on duration exposure for some time now, dating back to January 2017. Shortly afterward, we introduced a list of indicators to monitor going forward to determine if that defensive duration posture on U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds was still justified.1 We called that list our "Duration Checklist", and it contains elements focused on economic growth, inflation, central bank policy biases, investor risk appetite and bond market technicals. The Checklist is meant to be a purely objective read on the data and how it relates to the likely future path of bond yields. We last updated the Checklist back on January 30th of this year.2 The conclusion was that the underlying economic and inflation backdrop was still indicating more upside for yields on a 6-12 month horizon in both the U.S. and Europe. There was a risk, however, that the bond selloff could pause given heightened bullishness on risk assets and extremely oversold conditions in government bond markets. Since that last update of the Checklist, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is higher (2.86% vs. 2.72%) while the 10-year German Bund yield is lower (0.36% vs. 0.70%). Although yields in both markets did climb to even higher levels - 3.12% and 0.78%, respectively - in February and March before pulling back to current levels. As we update the Checklist once again this week, we see that the backdrop is still conducive to rising bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, but with differing risks compared to six months ago (Table 1). Note that the Checklist was designed to assess if we should maintain our duration tilt, thus we apply a checkmark ("check") to any indicator that points to potentially higher bond yields, and an "x" to any element that could signal a bond market rally. Table 1The Message From Our Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish For Both USTs & Bunds The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market Global growth momentum is decelerating. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is in a clear downtrend, having fallen for five consecutive months (Chart 2). That weakening is broad based, as shown by the depressed level of our LEI diffusion index. The global ZEW index, measuring investor sentiment towards growth in the major developed economies, has been falling sharply since March of this year and now sits at the lowest level since January 2012. The Citigroup Global Data Surprise index peaked at the beginning of 2018 and has fallen steadily to below zero, although it may be in the process of bottoming out. Meanwhile, our global credit impulse - a reliable leading indicator of global growth - has noticeably slowed. We are giving an "x" to all these elements of our Duration Checklist, indicating that the current "soft patch" of global growth represents a risk to the performance of our below-benchmark duration stance. U.S. growth remains solid, but Europe is cooling a bit. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders at the moment (Chart 3). The ISM manufacturing index is near 60, while both consumer and business confidence are above the mid-2000s peak of the previous business cycle. Corporate profits are growing around 20% and our models suggest that this trend can continue over the rest of 2018. All these indicators earn a "check" on the U.S. side of our Duration Checklist. Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Are##BR##No Longer Bond Bearish Global Growth Indicators Are No Longer Bond Bearish Global Growth Indicators Are No Longer Bond Bearish Chart 3U.S. Growth##BR##Remains Strong U.S. Growth Remains Strong U.S. Growth Remains Strong The growth story is mixed in the euro area, however (Chart 4). The manufacturing PMI has been steadily falling since February of this year, but still remains well above the 50 line indicating an expanding economy. Consumer and business confidence are both at cyclical highs, but the upward momentum has stalled. Corporate profits are growing at a robust pace, but our models suggest that earnings should slow over the remainder of this year. In our Duration Checklist, the momentum of the growth indicators is the relevant measure and not the level. So we are now placing an "x" on the manufacturing PMI, which is giving a clear signal on slowing growth, while maintaining a "check" next to confidence and profit growth but with a question mark given that both may be in the process of rolling over. Inflation pressures are strengthening on both sides of the Atlantic. Back in January, the inflation elements of the Checklist were providing the most mixed signals. That is no longer the case (Charts 5 & 6). Oil prices are accelerating in both U.S. dollar and euro terms, which suggests upside risks on headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area. Unemployment rates are now below the OECD estimates of full employment, and wage inflation is accelerating, in both regions. Thus, all the inflation components of our Duration Checklist earn a "check". Chart 4Is Euro Area Growth Peaking? Or Just Cooling? Is Euro Area Growth Peaking? Or Just Cooling? Is Euro Area Growth Peaking? Or Just Cooling? Chart 5U.S. Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish U.S. Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish U.S. Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Chart 6Euro Area Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Euro Area Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Euro Area Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Both the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB) are biased to tighten monetary policy. The Fed continues to signal that additional rate hikes are coming given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy and rising trend in U.S. inflation. The ECB has announced that it will taper its net new bond purchases to zero by year-end in its asset purchase program, and has provided forward guidance on the timing of a first rate hike in 2019. Both policies are credible given falling unemployment and rising core inflation rates in both the U.S. and euro area. Thus, we are keeping the "check" on both sides of the policy portion of the Checklist. Investor risk appetite has grown more cautious. This element of our Checklist was a potential headwind to our below-benchmark duration stance back in January, but is much less of an impediment to higher yields now (Charts 7 & 8). Chart 7U.S. Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Cooled Off A Bit U.S. Investor Risk Appetite Has Cooled Off A Bit U.S. Investor Risk Appetite Has Cooled Off A Bit Chart 8European Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Also Cooled Off European Investor Risk Appetite Has Also Cooled Off European Investor Risk Appetite Has Also Cooled Off The cyclical advances of both the S&P 500 and EuroStoxx 600 have stalled, and both indices are now back close to their 200-day moving averages, suggesting that equity markets are not overstretched (and, therefore, ripe for a correction that could drive down bond yields in a risk-off move). The VIX and VStoxx volatility indices remain at low levels, even after the spike that occurred in early February and the more modest volatility shock in the aftermath of the Italian election in May. This implies that investors still prefer owning risky assets over risk-free government bonds. These elements warrant a "check" on both sides of our Duration Checklist. Corporate bond spreads, however, have widened over the past few months, suggesting that investors are pricing in some increased uncertainty over future creditworthiness. While the overall level of spreads is still historically low, the rising trend justifies an "x" in our Checklist as a possible headwind to rising Treasury and Bund yields from waning investor risk appetite. Treasuries and Bunds are not as oversold compared to January, but large short positions remain an issue. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is now trading just above its 200-day moving average, while the deeply oversold price momentum seen earlier in the year has eased up a bit but remains negative (Chart 9). The combined signal is a neutral one but, in our Checklist framework, neither of these measures is stretched enough to suggest that yields cannot move higher. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both momentum elements on the U.S. side. There is still a large short position in 10-year Treasury futures according to the CFTC data, however, and this remains an impediment to higher Treasury yields - we are keeping the "x" for this piece of the Checklist. For Bunds, yields are now trading just below the 200-day moving average while price momentum has turned slightly positive (Chart 10). While neither indicator is stretched from an historical perspective, they are not sending a message that Bunds are oversold. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both technical elements on the European side of our Checklist (note that due to a lack of available data, we exclude investor positioning when evaluating the technical backdrop for Bunds). Chart 9USTs Not Oversold,##BR##But Large Short Positions Remain USTs Not Oversold, But Large Short Positions Remain USTs Not Oversold, But Large Short Positions Remain Chart 10Bund Technicals##BR##Are Neutral Bund Technicals Are Neutral Bund Technicals Are Neutral The majority of indicators in our Duration Checklist continue to point to upward pressure on U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Thus, we conclude that a continued below-benchmark duration stance is warranted for both markets. Not all of the news is bond bearish, however. The cooling of global growth indicators, the euro area manufacturing PMI, the widening of corporate credit spreads and the persistent short position in the Treasury market remain potential headwinds to a renewed period of rising bond yields. Yet without evidence that U.S. or European capacity constraints are loosening up, triggering a dovish shift from the Fed and ECB, the upward trend in inflation will prevent any meaningful decline in yields from current levels. Bottom Line: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A continued below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada Delivers Another Rate Hike, With More To Follow Chart 11The BoC & The Fed: Follow The Leader The BoC & The Fed: Follow The Leader The BoC & The Fed: Follow The Leader The Bank of Canada (BoC) hiked its policy rate last week by 25bps to 1.5%, once again delivering a tightening in lagged response to U.S. rate increases over the past year. The hike was not a surprise, as the Canadian economy is operating at full capacity and core inflation is at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets are now pricing that both the BoC and the Fed will raise rates by another 75bps over the next twelve months, and we see the potential for even more increases than that - even with the Canadian economy cooling from the very rapid growth seen last year (Chart 11). The current spread between 2-year government bond yields in the U.S. and Canada is the widest since 2008, which is weighing on the level of the Canadian dollar versus the greenback (3rd panel). The latter is helping to ease financial conditions in Canada (bottom panel), especially at a time when the country is benefitting from the positive terms of trade impact of strong oil prices. The loonie is also being impacted by worries about future U.S. trade policy. The Trump administration has already imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports and is demanding serious concessions in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In their latest Monetary Policy Review (MPR) that was released after the BoC policy meeting last week, the central bank provided an estimate of the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs that went into effect on June 1st. The conclusion was that the 25% tariff on U.S. imports of Canadian steel, and 10% levy on U.S. aluminum imports, would have little net impact on the Canadian economy once the Canadian response was factored in. The BoC concluded that the level of total real Canadian exports would be reduced by -0.6% by year-end, but that Canadian real imports would also decline by a similar amount as the Canadian government slapped its own tariffs on U.S. exports of steel, aluminum and various consumer products. This neutral view on U.S.-Canada trade tensions appeared throughout the BoC's updated economic forecasts, as its projections on the growth of Canadian exports, imports and U.S. real GDP growth (the critical driver of Canadian trade) were all increased from the previous MPR published in April. That may be an overly optimistic assessment of the potential impact of a trade dispute with the U.S. Yet the BoC did admit that it can only estimate the impact of tariffs once the precise details are known, thus it cannot adjust its forecasts based on what might happen in the NAFTA negotiations. The BoC can only base its forecasts on what they can observe now, which is that Canada's overall economy remains in decent shape, even though the composition of growth is shifting. The BoC's latest Business Outlook Survey indicates that Canadian firms continue to see robust demand and are facing increasing capacity constraints. This is boosting hiring plans and keeping capital spending intentions reasonably firm even with the uncertainties over NAFTA that is causing some firms to delay investment (Chart 12). The BoC is projecting that overall Canadian real GDP will only grow by 2% in 2018, even with a smaller contribution to growth from consumer spending and housing. The year-over-year rate of change in retail sales volumes has already dipped into negative territory and is now at the lowest since the end of 2009 (Chart 13). The BoC has attributed this to some slowing in interest-sensitive spending in response to tighter BoC monetary policy. At the same time, household debt growth has been slowing and house price inflation has plunged over the past year (although most of this decline occurred in the overheated Toronto market). The BoC is not concerned about the impact of its rate hikes on the interest burden for households, despite the high level of household debt, given the accelerating pace of wages and income growth. The BoC is likely happy to see a shift away from overheating consumption fueled by speculative increases in house prices, but there is a risk that additional rate hikes could finally trigger the long-awaited bursting of the Canadian housing bubble. Chart 12Canadian Businesses Are Optimistic,##BR##Even With Trade Worries Canadian Businesses Are Optimistic, Even With Trade Worries Canadian Businesses Are Optimistic, Even With Trade Worries Chart 13Higher BoC Rates##BR##Do Have An Impact Higher BoC Rates Do Have An Impact Higher BoC Rates Do Have An Impact (On a related note - the topic of housing bubbles will be discussed at the upcoming BCA Investment Conference in Toronto on September 23-25 by Hilliard Macbeth of Richardson GMP, who has written several books on the topic of global asset bubbles and has some particularly strong views to share on Canadian housing.) Yet the BoC will have to take the risk that additional rate increases could cause a bigger shakeout in the Canadian housing market, given that Canadian inflation is trending higher. Headline CPI inflation is now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band, while all the various measures of core inflation that the BoC monitors are hovering around 2% (Chart 14). The BoC estimates that the output gap in Canada is now closed, and that the tight labor market will continue to boost inflation. Chart 14Inflation On The Rise In Canada Inflation On The Rise In Canada Inflation On The Rise In Canada Chart 15Market Is Underpricing The BoC Market Is Underpricing The BoC Market Is Underpricing The BoC Already, the average hourly earnings measure of wage inflation is growing close to 4% on a year-over-year basis, although the BoC has noted in recent research that other measures of labor costs are not growing as fast.3 Nonetheless, with 10-year inflation expectations in the Canadian inflation-linked government bond market now trading just below the BoC's 2% target (bottom panel), and with a high number of Canadian businesses reporting increasing difficulties in sourcing quality labor, the inflationary message sent by the surging rate of average hourly earnings growth will likely prove to be correct. Even though the Canadian OIS curve is now discounting another 75bps of rate hikes over the next year, that would only take the BoC policy rate to 2.25% - still below the central bank's estimate of the neutral policy rate, which is between 2.5-3% (Chart 15). Given the likely need for the BoC to eventually move to a restrictive stance to cool off an overheating economy and keep inflation around the 2% target, we see more potential upside for Canadian bond yields, especially with very little increase currently priced in the forwards. Stay underweight Canada in hedged global bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15th, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Thoughts On The Treasury-Bund Spread", dated January 30th, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/san2018-2.pdf Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Chief Emerging Markets Strategist Highlights The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on mainland growth. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. A narrowing interest rate differential between China and the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value versus the dollar. Our credit stress test on Turkish banks suggests their stocks are not yet cheap assuming the non-performing loan ratio rises to 15%. Stay short banks and the lira. Feature China's economic slowdown, ongoing trade wars and accumulating U.S. inflation pressures will continue propping up the U.S. dollar, thereby sustaining a perfect storm for EM financial markets. This is taking place amid the poor structural fundamentals in the developing economies and the existing overhang of investor positions in EM. Altogether this argues for more downside in EM financial markets. A strong dollar is also a bad omen for developed markets' stock indexes. The reason being that the dollar is a countercyclical variable, and the greenback's rallies usually coincide with global trade downturns that are bearish for global cyclical equity sectors (Chart I-1). Needless to say, tariffs on imports are ultimately negative for global trade, and will exacerbate the global growth slowdown that has been occurring since early this year. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that global trade has so far temporarily benefited from mounting expectations of tariffs.1 Companies have ordered more inputs and shipped more goods in advance of higher tariffs coming into effect. This is why global shipments and manufacturing production have so far held up reasonably well, while business expectations have plummeted (Chart I-2). Consequently, global trade and manufacturing production will likely record considerable weakness later this year. Since markets are typically forward looking, asset prices will adjust beforehand. Chart I-1Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Chart I-2Global Trade Is Heading South Global Trade Is Heading South Global Trade Is Heading South We are maintaining our negative stance on EM stocks, currencies, credit markets and high-yielding local bonds. China Is Easing Liquidity, But Don't Hold Your Breath Chart I-3Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: ##br##Positively Correlated Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: Positively Correlated Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: Positively Correlated China's softening industrial data, growing anecdotal evidence of a worsening credit crunch in the economy, U.S. tariffs, and plunging domestic share prices have been sufficient for the authorities to ease liquidity conditions in the Chinese banking system. Not surprisingly, many investors are wondering whether the worst is over for Chinese stocks and China-related financial markets worldwide, including those in EM. At the current juncture, liquidity easing by the PBOC is a necessary but not sufficient condition to turn positive on this nation's industrial cycle as well as EM risk assets. We have the following considerations on this topic: First, China's risk-free interest rates - government bond yields - led the selloff in both EM and Chinese stocks (Chart 3). These bond yields have plunged since November, foreshadowing the slowdown in China's growth and the carnage in EM/Chinese financial markets. By and large, there has been a positive correlation between EM share prices and China's local bond yields and interbank rates as illustrated on Chart I-3. For example, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets rallied substantially in 2017 in the face of rising interest rates in China. Likewise, they dropped in the second half of 2015 as bond yields and money market rates in China plunged. The rationale behind the positive correlation between EM risk assets and Chinese interest rates is that the latter rise and EM risk assets rally when the mainland economy is improving. The opposite is also true. At the moment, Chinese risk-free bond yields will likely continue to drop as additional slowdown in growth is in the cards. This heralds a further drop in EM financial markets. Second, any major stimulus will constitute a retraction of the Chinese government's policy of deleveraging and containing financial risks. The latter is the code phrase Chinese authorities use to stop fueling bubbles and speculative excesses. Hence, any policy stimulus will for now be measured and insufficient to boost growth this year. China is saddled with massive debt and money overhangs and a bubbly property market. Ongoing enormous expansion in money supply (i.e., RMB deposits)2 (Chart I-4) and a narrowing interest rate differential over the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value (Chart I-5). Chart I-4'Helicopter Money' In China Helicopter Money' In China Helicopter Money' In China Chart I-5The RMB Will Depreciate Further The RMB Will Depreciate Further The RMB Will Depreciate Further Even though capital controls have tightened since 2015, the capital account is not perfectly closed. As such, shrinking interest rate deferential versus the U.S. warrants further yuan depreciation. In short, the authorities cannot reduce interest rates further and expand money/credit growth at a double-digit rate without tolerating sizable currency deprecation. If the Chinese authorities opt for a large fiscal and credit stimulus again, the nation's structural imbalances will grow further. In this scenario, the Middle Kingdom's secular growth outlook will deteriorate, and policymakers' manoeuvring room to stimulate in the future will narrow. Chart I-6China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping Crucially, China's enormous money and credit creation are entirely unrelated to its high savings rate. Money and credit in China have been driven by speculative behavior of Chinese banks and borrowers not households' high savings rate. We have discussed these issues in detail in our past special reports3 and will not expand on them here. Third, there has been money/credit tightening on three fronts in China - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption. Even though liquidity conditions in the banking system are now ameliorating, as evidenced by the plunge in interbank rates, the regulatory clampdown on the shadow banking system as well as the anti-corruption campaign targeting the financial industry are still underway. The latter policy initiatives will continue to curb credit creation by suppressing banks' and shadow banking institutions' ability and willingness to finance the real economy. In fact, it is not inconceivable that the regulatory clampdown and anti-corruption campaign will have a larger impact on credit supply than the decline in borrowing costs. Finally, policy easing and tightening works with a time lag. China's business cycles and related financial markets do not always respond swiftly to changes in policy stance. Specifically, monetary and fiscal policies were easing substantially from the middle of 2015, yet EM/China-related risk assets continued to plummet for six months until February 2016. Conversely, policy was tightening in China throughout 2017, yet EM/China-related asset markets did well in 2017. In brief, there could be a long lag between a change in policy stance and a reversal in financial markets. For now, we reckon that the cumulative effect of policy tightening of the past 18 months will continue to seep through the Chinese economy till the end of this year. Chart I-6 demonstrates that various industrial cycle indicators continue to deteriorate. Bottom Line: The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on Chinese growth and China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets. More Downside The indicators that have been useful in foretelling the turmoil in EM financial markets this year are signaling that a negative stance is still warranted: One indicator that gave an early warning signal for the current EM selloff was EM sovereign and corporate bond yields. At the moment, the average of EM dollar-denominated corporate and sovereign bond yields continues to presage lower EM stock prices, as demonstrated in Chart I-7 - bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Notably, EM share prices display lower correlation with U.S. bond yields and U.S. TIPS yields than with EM corporate and sovereign bond yields (Chart I-8). Why are EM share prices exhibiting a stronger correlation with EM bond yields rather than with U.S. Treasury yields? The basis is that EM equities are sensitive to EM - not U.S. - borrowing costs. So long as the rise in U.S. bond yields is offset by compressing EM credit spreads, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields - i.e. EM borrowing costs in dollars - will decline, and EM share prices will rally (Chart I-7). But when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields rise - irrespective of whether because of rising U.S. Treasury yields or widening EM credit spreads - EM borrowing costs in dollars rise, and consequently equity prices come under considerable selling pressure. In other words, a drop in U.S. bond yields on its own is not enough for EM share prices to advance, and conversely, a rise in U.S. bond yields is not sufficient for EM stocks to drop. It is movements in EM U.S. dollar bond yields, which are comprised of U.S. Treasury yields and EM credit spreads, that matter for the direction of EM equity prices. Regarding local bond yields, EM share prices typically exhibit a strong negative correlation with EM domestic government bonds yields - the latter are shown inverted on this chart (Chart I-9). Since we expect EM currencies to depreciate further and, given the negative correlation between EM currency values and their local bond yields, the latter will continue rising. Chart I-8EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: ##br##Mixed Relationship EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: Mixed Relationship EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: Mixed Relationship Chart I-9EM Equities And Local Bond Yields: ##br##Strong Correlation EM Equities and Local Bond Yields: Strong Correlation EM Equities and Local Bond Yields: Strong Correlation The risky-to-safe-haven currency ratio4 continues to fall after experiencing a major breakdown early this year (Chart I-10, top panel). Historically, this ratio has been correlated with EM share prices and currently heralds further downside (Chart I-10, bottom panel). This ratio also is agnostic to the dollar's direction - it swings between risk-on versus risk-off regimes in financial markets, regardless of the general trend in the greenback. Hence, this indicator answers the question of the direction of EM share prices, regardless of the dollar's trend. Finally, key to EM performance has been corporate profits. Presently, the outlook for EM corporate profits is still negative, as suggested by the negative readings on China's money and credit (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Are Risk Assets In A Bear Market? bca.ems_wr_2018_07_12_s1_c10 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_12_s1_c10 Chart I-11EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink Bottom Line: EM risk asset will continue selling off and underperforming their DM counterparts. Stay short/underweight EM risk assets. The Dollar's Trend Is Still Up The U.S. dollar is instrumental to EM financial market trends. We expect the dollar rally to persist for now - at least through the end of this year. The underlying inflation gauge measure calculated by New York Fed points to further acceleration in U.S. consumer price inflation (Chart I-12). Furthermore, America's job market is continuing to tighten. In brief, U.S. domestic demand will stay robust even as global trade slumps. These will limit the Federal Reserve's ability to back off from tightening, even if EM financial markets continue to sell off. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside Remarkably, a strong U.S. exchange rate is needed to cap America's growth and inflation and to boost growth in the rest of the world, especially in Asia. Given the widening growth momentum between the U.S. and Asia, the dollar will likely need to rally significantly to reverse the growth differential currently moving in favor of America. This will be especially true if more trade tariffs are imposed. Odds are that the RMB will depreciate further given the backdrop of lower interest rates in China - discussed above. That will cause a downturn in emerging Asian currencies. A strong dollar, a slowdown in Chinese/EM demand for commodities and large net long positions by investors in oil and copper all argue for a considerable drop in commodities prices in the months ahead. This is bearish for Latin American and many other EM exchange rates. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. With respect to currency positions, we recommend investors to continue to short a basket of EM currencies such as BRL, ZAR, TRY, MYR and IDR versus the dollar. CLP and KRW are also among our shorts given our bearish outlook for copper prices, global trade and Asian currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkish Banks: A Bargain Or Value Trap? 12 July 2018 Turkish bank stocks have now fallen by 40% in local currency terms and by 55% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak early this year (Chart II-1), prompting the question whether they have become a bargain or are still a value trap. Banks represent 30% of the Turkey MSCI index and are integral to the performance of this bourse. Although Turkish banks appear to be cheap with their price-to-trailing earnings ratio at 4.5 and their price-to-book value ratio at 0.62, they are still vulnerable to a substantial rise in non-performing loans (NPL) and ensuing provisioning, write-off and equity dilution. Turkey has been experiencing an enormous credit binge for years and its interest rates have risen by 600 basis points since the start of the year. Yet, current NPLs and provisions stand at a mere 3% and 2.3% of total outstanding loan, respectively (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Chart II-2Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned The creditworthiness of debtors is worse when one takes into account that Turkish companies have large foreign currency debt and a record amount of foreign debt obligations due in 2018 (Chart II-3). In our credit stress test, we assume that in the baseline scenario the non-performing credit assets (NPCA) ratio will rise to 15% (Table II-1). Taking into account that the NPL-to-total loan ratio reached 18% in 2002 after the 2001 currency crisis, we believe 15% is a reasonable estimate. Chart II-3Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Table II-1Credit Stress Test For Turkish Banks EM: A Perfect Storm EM: A Perfect Storm To put this number further into perspective, India - one of the very few countries within the EM universe to have somewhat fully recognized its NPLs - currently has an NPL ratio of 15% on its public banks. Chart II-4Turkish Equities: ##br##A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio Turkish Equities: A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio Turkish Equities: A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio If we assume that Turkish bank stocks at the end of this cycle will trade at a price-to-book ratio of 1 after adjusting for all credit losses, then banks' stock prices are currently about 17% overvalued in the baseline scenario of 15% NPCA (Table II-1, the middle row). In all three scenarios, we assume a recovery rate of 40%. With regards to the overall equity market, Chart II-4 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is currently around 5, compared to the historical average of 8. For the bourse's CAPE ratio to drop to two standard deviations below its mean, share prices have to fall by another 20-25%. This is plausible given the outlook for more populist economic policies following the recent elections. Besides, corporate profits will contract considerably because of the monetary tightening that has occurred since early this year. The exchange rate is critical for Turkish financial markets. As such, revisiting currency valuation is also important. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of July 11 the lira was slightly more than one standard deviation below its historical mean (Chart II-5). For it to reach two standard deviations below its mean, it would roughly take another 15-17% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Given the current macroeconomic backdrop and the outlook for more unorthodox policies, including possible capital controls following President Erdogan's appointment of his son-in law as the key economic policymaker, the lira will likely undershoot. Meantime, foreign holdings of Turkish local bonds and stocks were not yet depressed as of June 29 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Chart II-6Foreign Ownership Is Still High Foreign Ownership Is Still High Foreign Ownership Is Still High Bottom Line: Provided Turkey's political outlook has deteriorated further after the recent elections, we assess that only after a 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with a 15-20% drop in stocks in local currency terms, will Turkish equities be a true bargain and warrant a positive stance. For now, dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds) should continue to underweight Turkey. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the following article Global automakers hail more ships as trade battles heat up. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com; and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil," dated March 22, 2018, link is available on page 17. 4 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total return indices relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist The London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure, unless and until fears of escalating Sino - U.S. trade disputes are allayed. Should this dispute devolve into full-blown trade war - something our geopolitical strategists expect - EM economies deeply embedded in global supply chains could be especially hard hit.1 This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general, base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute evolves into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will drive commodity demand - particularly for metals - significantly higher. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China's $5 billion loan and $250mm direct investment in Venezuela's oil industry will alleviate the country's oil-production and -export collapse for a brief interval. However, unless China brings its own industry experts in to run Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which has suffered a near-total loss of highly trained personnel, and manages to reverse government mismanagement and corruption, it is difficult to see the collapse in that country's oil industry being reversed. Separately, China's investment in and commitment to Venezuela could be a harbinger of future deals between it and Iran, if China decides to flex its economic muscle and widen the playing field in its trade dispute with the U.S. beyond ags. Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a global trade war overly punishing EM economies, many of which are deeply entwined in global supply chains, are weighing on base metals prices (see below). Right-tail - i.e., upside risks - are, for the most part, being ignored. Our assessment of balances and upside risk, particularly in copper, makes getting long attractive. We are, therefore, going long the Dec/18 $3.00 COMEX calls vs. short $3.20/lb calls at tonight's close. This is a tactical position. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered somewhat - trading above $1,260/oz earlier in the week - as global trade tensions increased. It since settled to the $1,250/oz level as trade anxieties re-emerged. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Prompt soybeans futures are probing five-year lows, after the U.S. announced an additional $34 billion in tariffs against China, which were immediately followed by Chinese reprisals, highlighted by 25% tariffs against soybeans. Feature Prices of the six base metals futures comprising the LMEX are highly sensitive to EM growth, which has benefited from the expansion of global supply chains. As a result, metals' prices are highly sensitive to EM incomes, EM trade volumes, and FX levels. Our modeling indicates these global macro variables will continue to play an outsized role in determining the trajectory of the metals' prices, particularly as relates to EM - China trade (Chart of the Week).2 Chart Of The WeekEM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM incomes and trade volumes have, for the most part, held up well this year. Our base case outlook is for the resilience underpinning the global economy to continue for the remainder of the year, in line with the IMF and World Bank expectations.3 However, escalating trade disputes are threatening to weigh on the global flow of goods, which, if they persist and deepen, will dampen demand for raw materials in general, and metals in particular. An acceleration in trade restrictions would dent not only trade flows, but also would harm EM incomes in the process. Our base case longer term gets cloudier. In the left tail of returns distributions, rising interest rates on the back of the Fed's interest-rate normalization process will remain on track, particularly as inflation and inflation expectations pick up. This will support a stronger dollar, which, all else equal, will increase EM debt servicing costs. Our colleagues in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy note, "Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance. As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years."4 We expect the Sino - U.S. trade dispute will get nastier, but we are mindful of the right tail risks in this process, as well. If leaders in the U.S., China, and EU can agree to revamp and modernize the rules of the road for global trade - i.e., protect intellectual property, remove forced technology transfers, and make markets more open and transparent - the upside risks to base metals returns, and commodities in general, would be significant. In such an evolution, EM income growth would accelerate, super-charging global trade volumes, and commodity demand. Trade Volumes Resilient For Now, But Protectionism Looms Overhead At present, global trade in goods amounts to more than $17 trillion of merchandise exports, while commercial services exports are more than $5 trillion.5 Accounting for tariffs imposed by the U.S. under Sections 232, and 301, as well as retaliatory action by China, Mexico, the EU, and Canada, barriers have so far been implemented on ~$150 billion worth of traded goods. This represents less than 1% of merchandise trade. Thus, current restrictions -- while intensifying -- will not significantly curb global flows (Chart 2). And, so far, EM trade volumes have held up well, with resilience in the flow of goods: Our forward-looking models are pointing toward continued trade-related support for base metals in coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 3EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War This should - ceteris paribus - translate into greater demand for metals, and a strong LMEX. Our modelling finds that the LMEX and EM trade volumes are cointegrated, and that a 1% increase in EM import volumes maps to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, in line with the overall income elasticity of trade reported by the World Bank last month.6 However, risks surrounding the flow of goods globally - especially between the U.S. and China and the U.S. and EU - are mounting. This is jeopardizing our base case for resilient EM trade and income in the near term. Most notable is the recent U.S. trade restriction imposed on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports effective July 6, and China's subsequent retaliation in kind, which hit U.S. ag exports - particularly soybeans - hard. Additional barriers similar to the tit-for-tat of late between the U.S. and China, raise the odds of a global trade war and further depress metal prices.7 If this U.S.-Sino trade spat devolves into a full-blown trade war, in which the U.S., China and the EU erect trade barriers, or raise tariffs or restrictions on foreign investment, global trade momentum could slow significantly, which would be devastating for EM income growth. The World Bank finds that if tariffs were to reach legal maximum rates under WTO commitments, global trade flows would decline by 9% - in line with the decline experienced during the global financial crisis (GFC) (Chart 4).8 In addition to mounting trade restrictions, the sustainability of Chinese demand is also relevant to our metals demand-side outlook. China's imports account for the bulk of EM import volumes, and a significant domestic slowdown that dents import demand would weigh on the metals complex. To date, China's import volume growth appears to be holding up, reflecting a controlled domestic demand environment (Chart 5). Chart 4Trade War Would Hurt EM Trade Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 5China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled Trade Barriers Would Hit EM Incomes Hard As noted above, in line with our base case outlook of supportive trade volumes so far this year, the IMF and World Bank expect the global economy to remain strong this year and next, highlighting trade as one of the two main growth catalysts (Table 1). DM growth, while showing signs of moderating, remains perched above potential. We expect this to persist, especially given fiscal stimulus measures in the U.S. announced earlier this year. According to our modelling, a 1% increase in EM GDP translates to a 1.1% rise in the LMEX. Global PMIs remain above the 50 mark, indicating global manufacturing continues to expand, which will remain supportive of commodity demand generally (Chart 6). Table 1Global Growth Expected To Remain Supportive Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 6U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth China's ~ $14 trillion GDP accounts for some ~ 16% of global GDP and is the highest among the EM economies.9 China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand for metals represented in the LMEX (Chart 7). China's base-metals demand has been resilient, despite tighter credit and monetary conditions and little in the way of fiscal stimulus in China. We continue to expect Chinese domestic demand will experience a managed slowdown as the government tackles its reform agenda in 2H18. Chart 7China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets Since 2000, the impact of income growth in China has only a slightly larger effect on the LME's price index versus that of DM regions such as the Euro Area.10 Our analysis indicates that, unlike the rest of the world, China's metal consumption is trend-stationary - i.e., mean reverting - and behaves almost as it if were a policy variable, which is to say a time series that is more a function of government policy than the laws of supply and demand. Bottom Line: EM income and trade volumes are expected to remain strong, which will be supportive of metals prices. Even so, markets are now dealing with a trade spat that could metastasize into a full-blown trade war. We are not there yet. However, the tail risks are increasing and markets now have to account for a higher likelihood of a slowdown in EM trade volumes, which could be followed by a redistribution of base-metals demand and re-ordering of trade flows. On the flip side, a resolution of the trade frictions would resolve many of these tail risks, and likely would lend support to metal prices via higher EM income growth. In any case, the FX outlook is not supportive for metal prices. A stronger dollar - our base case expectation - will weigh on metal demand and the LMEX. Fundamentals Will Play A Secondary Role Individual market fundamentals, such as aluminum supply cuts, copper mine strikes, and zinc's physical deficit contributed to the LMEX's outperformance last year (Chart 8). Metal-specific supply, demand and inventory conditions will continue influencing the individual metals in the index. Aluminum and copper constitute three-quarters of the LMEX, and fundamental developments in these two markets are especially relevant (Chart 9). Chart 8Individual Fundamentals Supported LMEX Last Year Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 9Copper, Aluminum Markets Are Key Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals U.S. sanctions on leading Russian aluminum producer Rusal and its top shareholder, the oligarch Oleg Deripaska, led to a 9% surge in the LMEX in the first few weeks of April, followed by a 6% retracement by the end of the month (Chart 10). While risks from this politically motivated tailwind have mostly faded - the U.S. announced that a change in ownership will exempt Rusal from these sanctions - geopolitical tensions remain relevant. Chart 10Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant In the very near term, ongoing contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida mine are an upside risk to the LMEX in the coming weeks. BHP's final offer to the labor union is due on July 24. Reuters reports that little progress has been made to settle the disputes between BHP and the union: agreement has been reached on only one-fifth of the points of contention.11 While June upside from these renegotiations have since faded and taken a back seat to downside pressures from the fear of a global trade war, a labor strike at the mine which dents supply, would support copper prices, and offset at least part of the index's downside macro risks. At 14.8% of the index, zinc accounts for a much smaller weight in the LMEX. After strong gains last year, the metal has been a headwind to the LMEX since March. Following two consecutive years of physical deficits, the market is moving toward a surplus, causing prices to slide. However, recent news of a possible production cut by Chinese smelters is preventing major declines. If this were to materialize - details remain vague at best - we would expect to see some support in the zinc market. Bottom Line: Demand-side macro variables - EM trade, incomes, and currencies - explain almost all of the movements in the LMEX. To date, these variables exhibit resilience pointing to support for metal prices. Left-side tail risks arising from possible trade wars have the market's attention and have been weighing on the complex of late. We expect these downside risks to be most relevant in the remainder of this year, and to take a front seat to individual market fundamentals. Nevertheless, individual metals' fundamentals will be important to follow. Right-side tail risks also bear watching, particularly if the current trade spats involving the U.S., China and the EU are resolved in favor of freer, more open global trade. This would super-charge EM growth, which would be bullish for commodities generally, base metals and oil in particular. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," published July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The adjusted R-squared for each of our two cointegrating regressions is greater than 0.95. These models cover the 2000 to present period. Our modelling also indicates that the LMEX is cointegrated with these three explanatory variables, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein the LMEX rises as these variables rise. 3 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook of April 2018 (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/03/20/world-economic-outlook-april-2018), and the World Bank's June 2018 Global Economic Prospects (http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects). 4 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates?" dated June 1, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Strong trade growth in 2018 rests on policy choices," published by the World Trade Organization April 12, 2018. 6 The period for our estimate is 2000 to now. We discuss the World Bank's trade elasticities in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets" published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The U.S. is threatening to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. 8 This is based on a simulation where WTO members increase tariffs to bound rates under WTO commitments as well as a 3% increase in the cost of traded services. This would mean average global tariff rates would legally more than triple from the current 2.7% to 10.2%. This exercise does not take into account the impact of other non-tariff restrictions, such as those on investments. Please see World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8277 titled "The Global Costs of Protectionism," dated December 2017. 9 Please see "The world's biggest economies in 2018," published by The World Economic Forum at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. 10 A 1 percentage-point (p.p.) increase in China's year-on-year (y/y) GDP rate translates to a 1.8% increase in the LMEX, while a 1 p.p. increase in y/y changes in the Euro Area's y/y GDP rate is associated with a 1.6% increase in the LMEX. These results are based on a dynamic OLS model which also includes the JPM EM currency index and EM export volumes as explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.97. 11 "Conversations can continue until July 24, at which point BHP must present its final offer, according to a negotiation schedule provided by the company. Between July 27 and July 31, the union will vote to either accept the company's offer or go on strike. After the vote, either party has as many as four days to request a period of government mediation that can last 10 days." Please see "Labour talks at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile enter 'home stretch," dated July 6, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Highlights The U.S. and China have now acted on their threats and imposed tariffs; A full-blown trade war is expected, as President Trump retaliates to China's retaliation; The Tiananmen Square incident, the third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and the Hainan Island incident are previous U.S.-China clashes worth comparing to today's conflict - they point to more trouble ahead; Trade tensions are already spilling out into strategic tensions in China's near seas. It is too soon to buy Chinese or China-exposed equities. Feature On July 6, President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports, to expand to $50 billion on July 20. China responded with tariffs of its own on the same amount (Chart 1). Trump has since threatened to slap a 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods, and potentially additional tariffs on another $300 billion. Beijing is refusing to negotiate under duress. Trade tensions have already spilled into the military realm, with scuffles occurring from the coast of Africa to the Taiwan Strait.1 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long maintained that U.S.-China relations are in a structural, not merely cyclical, decline.2 One of the most striking illustrations of this thesis has been the divergence of the two economies since the global financial crisis. The Chinese exporter has fallen in importance to China's economy while the U.S. consumer has been taking on less debt (Chart 2). Previously, a close economic dependency - dubbed "Chimerica" by prominent commentators - limited the two countries' underlying strategic distrust. Today, strategic distrust is aggravating economic divisions. Chart 1U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 2Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over How significant is the current rupture in U.S.-China relations? A brief look at the three major crisis points of the 1980s-2000s reinforces our structural assessment: the current conflict has the potential to become the biggest conflict in U.S.-China relations since the early Cold War. Judging by previous crises, it could last two years or more and involve extensive economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The disruption to global markets could be much greater than in the past due to China's greater heft on the world stage. Crisis #1: Tiananmen Square, 1989-91 The first major crisis in modern U.S.-China relations was also the worst to date. It is therefore the model against which to compare today's fraying relationship. It centered on the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 by the Communist Party and People's Liberation Army (PLA). Throughout the 1980s, China struggled to manage the rapid economic and social consequences of opening up to the outside world. The release of pent-up demand in an inefficient, command-style supply system resulted in rising bouts of inflation that spurred popular unrest (Chart 3). Meanwhile, student activism and democratic sentiment emerged in the political climate of glasnost across communist regimes. These forces coalesced into the large-scale demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, and other cities, in the spring of 1989. In response, the ruling party declared martial law and ordered the PLA to break up the demonstrations on June 3-4. The United States responded with a series of sanctions intended to punish and isolate China's leaders. President George H. W. Bush halted arms exports, other sensitive exports, most civilian and military dialogue, development aid, and support for multilateral bank lending to China.3 The other G7 countries joined with their own restrictions on exports, aid, and loans. China's economy slowed sharply to a 4% growth rate from above 10% for most of the decade. Meanwhile the government expanded the crackdown on domestic dissent. Exports to China clearly suffered from the crisis (Chart 4). Chart 3China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation Chart 4Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Ultimately, however, the U.S. and its allies proved unwilling to sustain the pressure. While multilateral lending dropped off, direct lending continued (Chart 5). China was also allowed to retain its Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status. The G7 began removing some of the sanctions as early as the following year. The inflow of FDI recovered sharply (Chart 6). Only a few of the sanctions had a lasting effect.4 Chart 5Multilateral Lending Cut Off After Tiananmen The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 6FDI Recovered From Tiananmen Quickly The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The relevance of Tiananmen today is that when faced with domestic instability, China's ruling party took drastic measures to ensure its supremacy. This included weathering the pain of the combined G7 trade sanctions at a time when China's economy was small, weak, and slowing. By comparison, today's trade war also threatens domestic stability - through unemployed manufacturing workers rather than pro-democracy students. Yet it does not involve a united front against China from the West (the Trump administration is simultaneously slapping tariffs on the G7!). Moreover, China's economy is far larger and more influential than in 1989. This gives it a greater ability to retaliate and to deter a conflict that is all the more consequential for global economies and markets (Table 1). As for the market impact, mainland China did not have functional stock markets until 1990-91, but Hong Kong-listed stocks collapsed during the Tiananmen protests and did not fully recover for a year (Chart 7). Today, tariffs are a more direct and lasting threat to corporate earnings than the Tiananmen fallout and it is not clear how far the cycle of retaliation will go. The implication for investors is that Chinese and China-exposed equities are not yet a buy, despite the 10% and 13% selloff in A-shares and H-shares in recent weeks. Table 1China Much Bigger Today Than In Previous U.S.-China Clashes The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 7Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Finally, the 1980s-90s marked the heyday of U.S.-China economic engagement and the Bush White House was eager to get on with business (even the Bill Clinton White House proved to be the same). By contrast, the Washington establishment today is united in demanding a tougher stance on China. The two countries are now "peers" locked in a struggle that goes beyond trade to affect long-term national security.5 Rebuilding trust will require painstaking negotiations that may take months; more economic and financial pain may be necessary to force cooperation. Bottom Line: The Tiananmen incident has long provided the basic framework for a rupture in U.S.-China relations, as it involved an official diplomatic cutoff along with a serious blow to Chinese growth rates and foreign trade and investment. Circumstances are even more dangerous today, as China is in a better position to stare down U.S. pressure and the U.S. is more desirous of a drawn-out confrontation. This is a bad combination for risk assets. It is too early to buy into the selloff in Chinese and China-related equities. Crisis #2: The Taiwan Strait, 1995-96 From the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and beginning of the Korean War in 1950, the United States undertook to defend the routed Chinese nationalists on their island refuge of Taiwan. Fighting occasionally broke out over control of the small coastal islands across the strait from Taiwan, most notably in the two "Taiwan Strait Crises" of 1954-55 and 1958. An uneasy equilibrium then developed that lasted until the third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-96. The third crisis arose in the aftermath of Taiwan's democratization. China's economy was booming, it was seeking to modernize its military, and the U.S. was increasing arms sales to Taiwan (Chart 8). In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded with a show of force on behalf of its informal ally, eventually deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and simmered for years afterwards. Chart 8Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Chart 9Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks The military and diplomatic standoff had a pronounced negative impact on financial markets. Both mainland and Taiwanese stock markets sold off and were suppressed for months afterwards (Chart 9). Our measure of the Taiwanese geopolitical risk premium - which utilizes the JPY/USD and USD/KRW exchange rates as proxies - shows that risks reached a peak during this period (Chart 10). As with Tiananmen, however, U.S. stocks were insulated from the crisis. Chart 10Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Over the long run, China's saber-rattling promoted pro-independence sentiment and Taiwanese identity, factors that are proving to be political risks once again in 2018 (Chart 11). China has held provocative military drills and imposed discrete sanctions as a result of pro-independence election outcomes in 2014-16 (Chart 12). Local elections on November 24 this year could serve as a lightning rod for provocations, especially if pro-independence politicians, which currently hold all branches of government, continue to win.6 Chart 11Beijing's Saber-Rattling Was Counter-Productive The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Further, the Trump administration has upgraded Taiwan relations and its trade war with China is already spilling over into Taiwan affairs. The decision to send the destroyers USS Mustin and Benfold through the Taiwan Strait on July 7-8 should be seen in the context of trade tensions. A new aircraft carrier transit is being openly discussed. These are negative signs that warrant caution toward both mainland and Taiwanese equities. Bottom Line: The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis marked the biggest spike in military tensions between the U.S. and China in recent memory and had a markedly negative impact on regional risk assets. It is a worrying sign that the U.S.-China trade war is becoming intermeshed with cross-strait political tensions. We continue to view Taiwan as the potential site of a "Black Swan" event, especially if this November's local election goes against Beijing's wishes.7 Crisis #3: Hainan Island, 2001 Lastly, the "Hainan Island Incident" marks another point of tension in U.S.-China relations. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea, between Hainan and the contested Paracel Islands. The U.S. plane landed on the southern island, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. The U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. The Chinese pilot went missing in the crash and was later declared killed in action. The incident fed into already sour feelings between Washington and Beijing. Just two years earlier, the U.S. government had "botched" an attack on a federal Yugoslav target in Belgrade, striking the Chinese embassy and killing three Chinese civilians.8 Thus, at the turn of the century, China was angry about U.S. military interventionism, while the U.S. was wary of China's military modernization. But this period of tensions was ultimately overshadowed by the September 11 terrorist attacks later that year, which prompted the U.S. to turn its attention to the Middle East and the war on terrorism. We highlight the Hainan incident for a simple reason: the South China Sea is a much more fiercely contested space today than it was in 2001. This is not only because global trade traffic has multiplied to around $4.14 trillion in the sea (Diagram 1). It is also because China has attempted to enforce its sovereignty claims over most of the sea by building up military assets there over the past several years.9 The U.S. has begun to push back by conducting "freedom of navigation" exercises that directly challenge China's maritime-territorial claims. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis In fact, China's entire maritime periphery - from the South China Sea to the Taiwan Strait to the East China Sea - has become a zone of geopolitical risk. The risk stems from China's attempts to establish a sphere of influence - and the American, Japanese, and other Asian nations' attempts to contain China's rise. A Hainan incident today would have a much bigger impact on the market than in 2001, when China's share of global GDP, imports, and military spending was roughly one-third of what it is today (see Table 1 above). And while a diplomatic crisis of this nature could easily cause global stocks to fall, the greater danger to the marketplace is that a military incident occurs. That would jeopardize global trade and growth, and the geopolitical fallout would be more difficult to contain. Bottom Line: U.S.-China strategic tensions came to a head in the South China Sea in 2001, but quickly subsided.. Today both the risk of a miscalculation and the economic stakes are greater than in the past. China's maritime periphery is thus an additional source of geopolitical risk at a time of U.S.-China trade war. Investment Conclusions: Then And Now What the three examples above have in common is that they occurred during the springtime of U.S.-China relations after the rise of Deng Xiaoping and China's "reform and opening up" policy. In each case, thriving trade and corporate profits provided an impetus for Washington and Beijing to move beyond their difficulties. The political elite across the West also believed that economic engagement would nudge China toward fuller liberalization and eventually even democracy. Today, however, the economic logic of a U.S.-China détente has been replaced by strategic rivalry, as the two economic systems are diverging. The U.S. is growing fearful of China's technological prowess, while China fears having its access to technology unplugged.10 As we have highlighted before, President Trump is virtually unconstrained on trade policy as well as on foreign policy and national security. And while he faces congressional resistance to his tariffs on G7 allies, Congress is actually egging him on in the fight against China - as seen with the Senate's vote to re-impose, against Trump's will, sanctions on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE.11 The kerfuffle over Trump's attempted trade deal with China in May was highly illuminating: Trump attempted to sign off on a deal with China to get a "quick win" ahead of the midterms. Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin called it a "truce" and top economic adviser Larry Kudlow promoted it on talk shows. But the deal was rebuffed by Congress, which is demanding resolution to the thornier problems of forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft that Trump's own administration prioritized. Hence this trade war can go farther than even Trump intended. In other words, Trump's protectionist rhetoric on China has been so successful that it now constrains his actions. The U.S. engaged in a similar trade war with Japan in the 1980s and succeeded in reducing Japan's share of the American market and in forcing Japan to invest long-term capital in the U.S. The Trump administration presumably wants to repeat this process and achieve a similar outcome (Chart 13). The intention is not necessarily to destabilize China, but to change the composition of the U.S.'s Asia trade, and hence the distribution of Asian power, and to re-capture Chinese savings via American hard assets. Chart 13The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War Chart 14The U.S. Seeks To Redistribute Asian Trade The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis If China's exports to the U.S. are taxed, both it and other manufacturing nations will have to invest more in other developing Asian economies. The latter can gradually make their manufacturing sectors more efficient, but cannot pose a strategic threat to the United States (Chart 14). However, Japan ultimately capitulated to U.S. tariff pressure because the two countries were Cold War allies with a clear national security hierarchy. By contrast, China and the U.S. are antagonists without a clear hierarchy. Beijing perceives U.S. actions as part of its strategy to contain China's rise. The Southeast Asian countries that stand to benefit from the transformation of international supply chains are also the ones that will eventually become most exposed to U.S.-China conflicts.12 As highlighted above, China is not likely to shrink from the fight that the U.S. is bringing. Given that we expect diplomacy to remain on track in North Korea,13 the result is that Taiwan and the countries around the South China Sea are the likeliest candidates for geopolitical risk events in Asia that disrupt markets this year or next. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For Taiwan, please see Section II below. For Africa, please see Ryan Browne, "Chinese lasers injure US military pilots in Africa, Pentagon says," CNN, May 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, and Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The institutions affected included the multilateral development banks and other U.S. and international development agencies. Please see Dianne E. Rennack, "China: U.S. Economic Sanctions," Congressional Research Service, October 1, 1997, available at congressionalresearch.com 4 Arms and certain high-tech exports remained under restriction for years after the event, both from Europe and the U.S. China is still unable to receive funding from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation or exports of items on the U.S. Munitions List. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!" dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Or if the pro-independence third party or the anti-establishment candidates win. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 There is an extensive debate over the Belgrade embassy bombing. It can be summarized by saying that although the U.S. apologized for the mistake, the U.S. suspected Chinese collaboration with the Yugoslav government, while China maintains its innocence. 9 We have tracked the South China Sea closely since 2012. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, and "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Trades & Positions Open Tactical Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Strategic Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert Robis, Chief Fixed Income Strategist Highlights Q2 Performance Breakdown: The return for the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of 2018, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Winners & Losers: Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Successful government bond country allocation (overweight U.K. & Australia, underweight Italy) helped offset the drag on performance from our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates. Scenario Analysis: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers for the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio in the second quarter of 2018. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. In this report, we update our estimates of future portfolio performance, using the scenario analysis framework that we introduced three months ago.1 After our recent decision to downgrade global spread product exposure, our model portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index over the next year in both our base case and plausible stress test scenarios. Q2/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Country & Credit Selection Pays Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of the year, which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +13bps.2 The first half of the quarter was driven by gains from our below-benchmark duration tilt, as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a peak of 3.13%. As yields drifted a bit lower in the latter half of Q2 in response to some cooling of global economic growth amid rising concerns on U.S. trade policy, the gains from duration reversed. At the same time, the outperformance from the spread product portion of our model portfolio started to kick in (Chart of the Week), even as credit spreads in all markets widened. Chart of the WeekSpecific Country & Credit Allocations##BR##Boosted Q2 Performance Specific Country & Credit Allocations Boosted Q2 Performance Specific Country & Credit Allocations Boosted Q2 Performance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2-2018 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +5bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated corporates (+5bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Caa-rated corporates (+2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities up to ten years (+3bps) Underweight emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated corporate debt (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+4bps) Overweight U.K. Gilts (+1bp) Overweight Australian government bonds (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade Financials (-2bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade Industrials (-2bps) Underweight JGBs with maturities beyond ten years (-5bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond ten years (-2bps) Two unusual trends stand out in the Q2 performance numbers: First, our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield debt was able to deliver positive alpha but a similar tilt on U.S. investment grade did not, even as U.S. corporate credit spreads widened during the quarter. It is odd for an asset class (high-yield) that is typically more volatile to outperform during a period of credit spread widening. Although that outcome did justify our view that U.S. investment grade corporates have been offering far less cushion to a period of spread volatility than U.S. junk bonds. Second, the flattening pressures on global government bond yield curves resulted in underperformance from the very long ends of curves in core Europe and Japan, even though the latter regions were the best performing bond markets in our model bond portfolio universe. This can be seen in Chart 4, which presents the benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the second quarter.3 Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q2/2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound As can be seen in the chart, the best performers were government bonds in Germany, France and Japan. The fact that our excess return from those countries was only a combined +2bps, even with an aggregate overweight exposure to all three, suggests that our duration allocation within the maturity buckets of those countries was a meaningful drag on performance. Yet in terms of the overall success rate of our individual country and sector calls, the news was positive in Q2. We've been overweight U.K. Gilts and Australian government bonds, which were some of the top performers in Q2. On the other side, we have been underweight emerging market corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, which were the worst performers in the quarter. Bottom Line: The GFIS model bond portfolio outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns After Our Recent Changes Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will have different drivers in the third quarter and beyond after the recent changes to BCA's recommended strategic asset allocations.4 We downgraded global equity and spread product exposure to neutral, based on our concern that the backdrop for global growth, inflation and monetary policy was turning less supportive for risk assets, particularly given the potential new economic shock from the "U.S. versus the world" trade tensions. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and emerging markets. Thus, while we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight, we also cut our weightings to euro area corporates, as well as to all emerging market hard currency debt (see the table on page 12, which shows the model bond portfolio changes that were made back on June 26th). The latter changes were necessary to maintain the relatively higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it does leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance to global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, even as we grow more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to have policymakers shift to a more dovish bias. Throughout the first half of 2018, we have been deliberately targeting a modest tracking error for our model portfolio, given the historical richness (low yields, tight spreads) of so many parts of the global bond universe. Our estimate of the tracking error is now below the 40-60bp range that we have been targeting (Chart 6), but we are willing to live with this given the higher degree of uncertainty at the moment.5 Chart 5New Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Chart 6Staying Defensive With##BR##The Risk Budget Staying Defensive With The Risk Budget Staying Defensive With The Risk Budget Importantly, the changes to our asset allocation recommendations should help boost the expected return of the model portfolio over the next year. In our Q1/2018 portfolio review published in April, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using recent historical yield betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns of each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield##BR##Betas To U.S. Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound With these tools, we can forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios, but with our current relative allocations. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 20-40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve (in this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold because of a sharp selloff in U.S. financial markets). The top half of Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios under our more bullish asset allocation prior to the changes made on June 26th, while the bottom half shows the expected performance of the model portfolio after our downgrade to global spread product. Importantly, the model bond portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in not only the base case scenario (+25bps of outperformance) but also in the two alternative scenarios of a very hawkish Fed (+46bps) and a very dovish Fed (+6bps). Those positive outcomes are not surprising, given that all three scenarios have some degree of risk aversion (higher VIX) that would play into our now-reduced exposure to credit risk in the portfolio. Our negative view on duration risk (Chart 7) also helps boost excess returns versus the benchmark in two of the three scenarios. Interestingly, these outcomes all occur despite the fact that the portfolio is now running with a negative carry (i.e. a lower total yield versus the benchmark index) after the reduction in spread product exposure (Chart 8). Although given our views that market volatility, bond yields and credit spreads are more likely to move higher in the next 6-12 months, we think that carry considerations now play a secondary role in portfolio construction. The time to try and earn carry is during stable markets, not volatile markets. Chart 7The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield Chart 8Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Bottom Line: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 For Italy, Germany & France, the bars have two colors since the portfolio weights were changed in mid-May, when we cut the recommended stance on Italy to underweight and raised the allocations to Germany & France as an offset. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. John Canally, Chief U.S. Investment Strategist Highlights Late in the business cycle, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, as long as margins are still rising. A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector. The bar remains high for Q2 2018 EPS, but investors are already focused on 2019 and the impact of trade policy on corporate results. Economic surprise is rolling over as inflation surprise climbs. Feature U.S. equities prices rose last week as U.S.-China tariffs kicked in. The U.S. dollar and 10-year Treasury yields dipped, while oil and gold held steady to start the first quarter. Despite the relative calm, investors remain concerned about the impact of trade policy and rising labor and raw materials costs on corporate margins. BCA expects S&P 500 margins to peak later this year. In the next section of this report, we examine the performance of a broad range of asset classes after the economy reaches full employment. Higher labor and input costs, along with the impact of global trade disputes, will be key topics of discussion as the Q2 earnings seasons kicks off this week. We provide a preview later in this report. Market participants are also worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. We explore those concerns in the second section below. Although the June jobs report (see below) was mixed relative to consensus expectations, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative. In the final section of this week's report, we discuss how investors should positions as CESI troughs and how to prepare for the inevitable bounce higher. The rise in the U.S. unemployment rate to 4% in June is not the start of a new trend. The labor market continues to tighten and the FOMC is noticing (Chart 1, panels 1 and 2). Chart 1Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick##BR##In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate The June Establishment Survey revealed a 213k rise in payrolls, along with upward revisions to the previous two months. The three-month average, at 211k, remains well above the underlying trend in labor force growth. In contrast, the Household Survey showed a more modest 102k increase in jobs in the month. Moreover, the number of people entering the workforce surged by 601k, which caused the unemployment rate to rise from 3.8% to 4%. We doubt this signals a trend change in the unemployment rate. The Household Survey is quite volatile relative to the Establishment Survey, suggesting that employment gains in the former are likely to catch up next month. The surge in the labor force in June could reflect the possibility that the tight labor market is finally drawing people into the workforce who were not previously looking for work. The participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage points to 62.9% (panel 4). However, this rate bounces around from month-to-month and is still in its post-2015 range. Moreover, the typical wave of college and high school students entering the workforce at this time of the year may have distorted the labor force figures due to seasonal adjustment problems. The real story is that the underlying labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. Average hourly earnings edged up by 0.2% m/m in June. The y/y rate held at 2.7% in the month, but the trend in wage growth remains up (panel 3). Moreover, the June non-manufacturing ISM report highlighted that economic momentum remains very strong, and the respondents' comments noted widespread building cost pressures related to labor shortages, rising commodity prices and a shortage of transportation capacity. China: It's Not 2015...Yet Investor concerns escalated last week over emerging markets and specifically China. Market participants are worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy's view1 is that Beijing is letting the CNY depreciate at a faster pace against the U.S. dollar for two reasons. First, it is a means to reflate the economy because the proposed U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would inflict a non-negligible blow to China that would need to be softened if it materializes. Secondly, letting the yuan depreciate sends a message to the U.S.: China can weaponize its currency if necessary. Meanwhile, our China Investment Strategy service remains cautious on Chinese equities, but notes that the recent selloff in domestic stocks may be overdone (we remain neutral on the investable market).2 Chart 2China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector, which would be very problematic for financial markets given our view that China has a higher pain threshold for stimulus than in the past. But tight monetary policy was a key driver of China's 2015 slowdown, and while monetary conditions have tightened since late-2016, they remain easier than what prevailed four years ago (Chart 2). There are key differences between 2015 and today from a U.S./global perspective as well. In late 2015, the dollar had moved up by 27% from its mid-2014 low, business capital spending was in freefall, credit spreads widened and oil dropped by over 50% year-over year. None of those conditions are currently in place. The key difference between 2015 and today is that three years ago there was no threat of a trade war with China, or the widespread imposition of protectionist measures more generally. Late Cycle Asset Return Performance Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods, especially those that occurred at the end of long expansions such as the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s.3 Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment - NAIRU). This week we look at asset class returns during late-cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart 3). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM or a peak in the S&P 500 index itself. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table 1 (and Appendix) presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the next recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in margins to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart 3Profit Margins Peak Late##BR##In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Table 1Historical Returns; Average Of##BR##Late 1990s And Mid-2000s Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cycles the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a 6-12 month horizon. Similar to Treasuries, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasuries after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield (HY) bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative returns in absolute terms after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but after margins peaked relative performance was mixed. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend aristocrat returns performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recession on average, but the performance is not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns have been a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns are attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during recessions where the return performance was mixed. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The return analysis underscores that investing late in an economic cycle is risky because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears promising. Based on this approach, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investor should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak, although they can hold onto Farmland, Timberland, structured products, real estate (including REITs) for a while after margins peak because it may not be as important to exit these areas before the next recession begins. For fixed income, investor should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. S&P 500 margins are still rising at the moment which, on its own, suggests that investors should be fully-exposed to all risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market (e.g. trade war, economic China slowdown, and EM economic and financial vulnerabilities). We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but the risk/reward balance at the moment suggests that risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Still Going Strong The consensus predicts a 21% year-over-year increase in the S&P 500's EPS in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, and 22% in calendar year 2018. Expectations are high; at the start of 2018, analysts projected 11% growth in Q2 and 12% in 2018. Energy, materials, technology and financials will lead the way in Q2 earnings growth, while real estate and utilities will struggle. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects a robust 18% increase in profits. The stout profit environment for Q2 2018 and the year ahead reflects sharply higher oil prices compared with Q2 2017, and the impact of last year's Tax Cut and Jobs Act on share buybacks and management confidence. However, global growth, which was a tailwind for S&P 500 results in 2017 and early 2018, has stalled. Moreover, rising costs for raw materials and labor will erode margins, but not until later this year. S&P 500 revenues are forecast to rise by 8% in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, matching the Q1 2018 year-over-year increase. The consensus expects a year-over-year gain in Q2 sales in all 11 sectors. Trade policy will continue to be at the forefront as managements discuss Q2 outcomes and provide guidance for 2H 2018 and beyond. In addition, capacity constraints, labor shortages and rising input costs will be key topics. Elevated corporate debt levels4 and climbing interest rates also will be debated as CEOs and CFOs provide guidance to Wall Street for Q3 2018 and beyond. Their counsel is more vital than the actual Q2 results. The markets probably have already priced in a robust 2018 earnings profile linked to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and are looking ahead to 2019 and 2020 (Chart 4). Investors typically stay focused on the current calendar year's EPS through to at least Q3 before turning their attention to the next year. However, this year may be different. The consensus is looking for 10% EPS growth in 2019, a sharp deceleration from the 22% increase expected this year. Chart 4High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 At 9%, the consensus estimate for S&P 500 EPS growth in 2020 is too high (Chart 4). BCA's view5 is that the next recession in the U.S. will commence in 2020. Since 1980, S&P 500 profits have dwindled by 28%, on average, in the first year of a recession. Chart 5 (panel 1) shows that elevated readings on the ISM manufacturing index still provide a very favorable backdrop for S&P 500 profit growth in 2018. However, the top panel also illustrates that the index rarely stays above 60 (it was 60.2 in June), especially late in the business cycle. The ISM is a good proxy for S&P 500 forward earnings (panel 2) and sales (panel 3). The implication is that while the near-term environment for S&P 500 earnings and sales is solid, there is not much more upside. Chart 5Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid... Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Global growth is peaking despite the rosy domestic economic environment. At close to 3%, the consensus view of U.S. GDP growth in 2018 is still accelerating thanks to pro-cyclical fiscal, monetary and legislative policies in the U.S.6 However, in early April, analysts estimates for 2019 GDP growth in the U.S. reached a zenith at 2.5% and have since rolled over (Chart 6). The FOMC projects real GDP growth at 2.8% in 2018 and 2.4% in 2019.7 Meanwhile, global GDP growth estimates for 2018 began flattening near 3.5% in early April 2018, about a month after President Trump announced the first round of tariffs. Estimates for 2019 economic growth peaked in mid-May, near 3.25% (Chart 6). Chart 6Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. The trade-weighted dollar is up by 2.5% year-to-date, and by 7% from its recent (February 2018) trough. Nonetheless, the dollar is down by 2% year-over-year and should not have a major impact on Q2 results. Furthermore, based on the minimal references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar probably will not be an issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018 (Chart 7). The handful of recent references is in sharp contrast with a surge in comments during 2015 and early 2016. The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. The implication is that a robust dollar may get a few mentions during the earnings season, but those mentions will be drowned out by concerns over global trade. Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically-focused corporations versus globally-oriented ones. Economic growth trends, discussed above, also play a role. Chart 8 shows that sales of domestically-oriented firms in the U.S. are still in a clear uptrend (panel 2). However, revenues of U.S. companies with a global focus stalled in recent quarters, even before the first round of tariffs were announced (panel 4). Margins at domestically-focused firms are still accelerating (panel 1), while margins at global businesses are topping out, albeit at a higher level than domestic ones. Moreover, since the start of 2017, the weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of global corporations to rebound and outpace those companies with only domestic concerns. BCA expects that margins for S&P 500 companies will peak later this year. Investors are skeptical that S&P 500 margins can advance in Q2 2018 for the eighth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters. However, the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate and raw materials costs escalate. Bottom Line: BCA expects that the earnings backdrop will support equity prices in 2018 (Chart 9). However, investors may have already priced in the benefits of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on corporate results and are focused on the upcoming 2019 and 2020 figures. EPS growth will be more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 9). In late June,8 we downgraded our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. Chart 7The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season Chart 8Global Sales,##BR##Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Chart 9Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Look Out Below Citi's Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative (Chart 10) after hitting a four-year high in late 2017. Since then, a harsh winter and early spring in the U.S., coupled with elevated expectations following the introduction of the tax bill, saw most economic data fall short of expectations. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth and uncertainty around U.S. and global trade policy negatively affected U.S. economic data in the spring and early summer months. Chart 10Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative In our late March 2018 report,9 we noted that there have been six other episodes since 2011 when the CESI behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 96 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. Moreover, in our March 2018 report we stated that a trough in CESI may be a month or two away, but there are no signs that has occurred. Table 2 illustrates the performance of key U.S. dollar-based investments, commodities and the dollar itself as the CESI moves from zero to its ultimate trough. We identified eight periods since 2010 when the CESI moved lower from zero. Table 2U.S. Stocks, Credit And Commodities As Economic Surprise Turns Negative Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View On average, these episodes lasted 43 days, with the longest (81 days) in early 2015 and the shortest (13 days) in January-February 2013. During these phases, U.S. equities posted minimal gains and underperformed Treasuries (Chart 11). Moreover, investment-grade and high-yield credit tracked Treasuries, and there was little difference between the performance of small cap and large cap equities. Gold and oil struggled, while the dollar barely budged. Chart 11U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs While the CESI is rolling over, the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index is on the upswing (Chart 12). We identified seven stages when the CESI rolled over while the Citi Inflation Surprise Index: 2003-2004, 2007-2008, 2009, 2011, 2012-13, 2014 and this year. The late 2007 period is most similar to today; the other five episodes occurred either during early cycle (2003-2004, 2009 and 2011) or mid-cycle (2012-13 and 2014). In late 2007, the U.S. economy was in the late stages of an expansion, the unemployment rate was below full employment and the Fed was raising rates. The stock-to-bond ratio fell, credit underperformed Treasuries and gold and oil rose. Furthermore, small caps outperformed large caps, and the dollar fell (Chart 13). Chart 12Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise##BR##When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Chart 13U.S. Financial Assets,##BR##Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... Our work10 shows that these periods were associated with higher wage and compensation metrics, and higher realized core inflation. Moreover, these phases tended to occur when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was above neutral. The implication is that inflation indices are poised to move higher in the coming year, and prompt the Fed to continue to boost rates gradually at first, but then more aggressively starting in mid-2019. Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data is not over. Treasury bond yields will likely dip as the CESI troughs. However, the weakness in the economic data does not signal recession. We expect that the Inflation Surprise Index will continue to grind higher, while unemployment dips further into excess demand territory and oil prices rise. After the CESI forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb.11 Fed policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of their 2% inflation target. However, because core PCE inflation is already at the Fed's target, the central bank will be slower to defend the stock market in the event of a swoon. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Appendix Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View 1 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", published June 29, 2018. Available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", published July 5, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View," October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Till Debt Do Us Part", published May 8, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Third Quarter 2018: The Beginning Of The End", published June 29, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Line Up," published March 12, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180613.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sideways," published June 25, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting", published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Wait A Minute", published May 28, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Solid Start," published January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits," published October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Mathieu Savary, Foreign Exchange Strategist Highlights On a short-term basis, the dollar is massively overextended and is likely to experience a correction over the coming weeks. EM assets and currencies are the anti-dollar, and will benefit from these dynamics. As a result, oversold commodity currencies like the AUD, CAD, and NZD should be the main beneficiaries of a dollar correction within the G-10 FX space. However, this bout of dollar weakness is unlikely to mark the end of the greenback's 2018 rally. Global liquidity conditions remain very dollar bullish as the U.S. economy is absorbing liquidity from the rest of the world. This creates a scarcity of greenbacks in international markets. It is also dollar bullish because it weighs on the outlook for global growth, flattering the countercyclical nature of the USD. Gold should be the key gauge to judge whether these dynamics will be playing out as we foresee. Feature The last quarter was dominated by the dollar's strength and weakness in EM bonds; weakness that has now spread to EM equities. After such violent moves, it is now time to reflect and to try to understand what the second half of the year may have in store for the dollar. In our view, the dollar move has become overextended. As a result, we anticipate the dollar to experience a correction over the course of the coming months - a move that should benefit risk assets, and EM plays in particular. However, while this correction is likely to be playable for tactical traders, this does not spell the end of the dollar rally and EM selloff. The global liquidity backdrop supports a continuation of the trends seen over the past few months. Short-Term Momentum Extremes The vigor of the dollar rally this year along with the violence of EM bond, currency and equity selling has been eye-catching. However, we are seeing many signs that these moves may have become overdone on a short-term basis. Let's begin with EM assets. EM assets are very important due to their high sensitivity to global liquidity, global growth and the dollar. The market breadth of EM stocks is near its most oversold levels since the financial crisis. This suggests that commodity currencies are likely to experience a relief rally in the coming weeks (Chart I-1). In fact, both the MACD and 14-day RSI oscillators of EM stocks are corroborating this message, having hit some of their lowest levels since 2016 (Chart I-2). Such a rebound could be especially beneficial for the AUD, NZD, and CAD, as speculators have accumulated large short positions in these currencies (Chart I-3). Chart I-1EM Are ##br##Oversold EM Are Oversold EM Are Oversold Chart I-2EM Oscillators Point##br## To A Rebound EM Oscillators Point To A Rebound EM Oscillators Point To A Rebound Chart I-3More Reasons For The AUD ##br##And His Friends To Rebound More Reasons For The AUD And His Friends To Rebound More Reasons For The AUD And His Friends To Rebound The key for this rally to unfold will be U.S. dollar weakness - a correction that we feel is likely to materialize. From a technical perspective, our dollar capitulation index is currently flagging massively overbought conditions, a picture that our intermediate-term indicator also highlights (Chart I-4). Looking at the euro - the largest constituent of the DXY dollar index - provides a mirror image. The EUR/USD's intermediate-term momentum measure is flagging deeply oversold levels, and the paucity of up days in this pair over the recent month is also congruent with a temporary bottom (Chart I-5). In fact, shorter-term indicators like the MACD and 14-day RSI oscillators have not only reached deeply oversold readings, but have also recently begun to form positive divergences with the price of EUR/USD itself (Chart I-6). Chart I-4The Dollar Should Correct The Dollar Should Correct The Dollar Should Correct Chart I-5Euro Is The Anti-Dollar Euro Is The Anti-Dollar Euro Is The Anti-Dollar Chart I-6Positive Divergences In The Euro Positive Divergences In The Euro Positive Divergences In The Euro What could be a catalyst for a dollar correction that would also help EM assets and thus provide a welcome boost to the euro, and even more so commodity currencies? China obviously plays a key role. One of the crucial ingredients behind the recent generalized USD strength and selloff in EM-related plays has been the rapid fall in the yuan against the dollar. As we argued last week, this remains a key risk for the remainder of the year. However, we also prophesized that Beijing is concerned by the speed of the recent decline, and could try to manage the pace of CNY's fall for now.1 Early this week, the People's Bank of China began "open-mouth" operations in an effort to support the RMB, which seems to be putting a temporary floor under the renminbi. As long as the dam resists, the DXY's rally will pause. Additionally, the speed of the divergence between U.S. growth and the rest of the world has probably reached a short-term peak that will temporarily get reversed. As Chart I-7 illustrates, European, Japanese and Australian economic surprises are attempting to form a bottom, while U.S. ones have just moved below the zero line. Finally, the dollar is likely to lose one of its key supports from last quarter: the U.S. Treasury. As Chart I-8 illustrates, when the Treasury rebuilds its cash balances, the dollar does well. Essentially, through 2017, the Treasury was draining its cash balance ahead of the debt-ceiling standoff. By spending its stash of cash, the U.S. federal government was injecting reserves - in effect liquidity - into the banking system. After the debt-ceiling extension last September, the Treasury proceeded to rebuild its pile of funds, draining reserves and liquidity out of the banking system. This process is now over, and therefore this support for the dollar will continue to fade. Chart I-7Economic Surprises And The Dollar: ##br##From Friends To Foes Economic Surprises And The Dollar: From Friends To Foes Economic Surprises And The Dollar: From Friends To Foes Chart I-8The U.S. Treasury Is Done Rebalancing##br## Its Cash Balance The U.S. Treasury Is Done Rebalancing Its Cash Balance The U.S. Treasury Is Done Rebalancing Its Cash Balance Altogether, these dynamics are likely to cause the dollar to soften in the near term, especially since, as Dhaval Joshi highlighted in BCA's European Investment Strategy, currency market players are displaying a high degree of groupthink - as measured by the trade-weighted dollar's fractal dimension - and could easily be panicked by a defusing of the growth divergence theme (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Group Think In The Dollar = Hightended Risk Of Countertrend Group Think In The Dollar = Hightended Risk Of Countertrend Group Think In The Dollar = Hightended Risk Of Countertrend Bottom Line: The dominant trends of the second quarter - a strong dollar, weak commodity currencies and EM plays - are now crowded trades. With the Chinese monetary authorities trying to limit the speed of the CNY's decline, with economic surprises outside the U.S. finding a floor, and with the U.S. Treasury backing away from reducing liquidity in the banking system, a countertrend move across the dollar, EM assets, and commodity currencies is a growing possibility. Why A Countertrend Move And Not A New Trend? Our view remains that global growth has further room to decelerate, that investors have fully anticipated an increase in global inflation, and that the renminbi has greater downside. All these support our expectation that if a period of weakness in the dollar were to materialize this summer, it would be temporary.2 However, another factor plays a big role: The evolution of liquidity flows in the global economy. Essentially, at the core of this argument lies the fact that we worry that the continued growth outperformance of the U.S. along with the revival of animal spirits in this enormous economy will suck in dollar liquidity from the rest of the world. Not only will this create a scarcity of dollars, thus bidding up the price of the greenback in the process, but it will also hurt highly indebted EM economies - nations that have high dollar debts and thus need dollar liquidity to stay afloat (Chart I-10). To begin with, U.S. banks have been slowly increasing their lending to the U.S. private sector. The upsurge in business confidence, with the NFIB small business survey and the Duke CFO survey near record highs, along with the increase in U.S. capex, confirms the durability of this rebound. Additionally, U.S. households also have the wherewithal to increase their borrowings. Not only is household debt as a percentage of disposable income near a 15-year low but, most importantly, debt servicing costs as a percentage of disposable income remain at levels last seen in the early 1980s (Chart I-11). Moreover, banks are still easing their lending standards on mortgages - which represent nearly 70% of household credit - and mortgage quality as measured by FICO scores are still well above levels that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. Chart I-10EM Dollar Debt Is High EM##br## Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt Chart I-11U.S. Households Have The ##br##Wherewithal To Take On Debt U.S. Households Have The Wherewithal To Take On Debt U.S. Households Have The Wherewithal To Take On Debt This is important, because when banks increase their loan books, they run down their liquidity (Chart I-12). To be more specific, rising loan issuance results in banks selling securities on their balance sheets and running down their cash balances. As Chart I-13 illustrates, when the cash and security inventories of U.S. commercial banks decrease, the U.S. dollar rallies. This relationship was very strong from 1980 to 2008 but loosened for two years during the financial crisis. Since 2010, it has re-established itself. The probability is therefore high that it will remain in place, and be a dollar-bullish factor over the medium term. Chart I-12Rapid Loan Growth Means Less Liquid Rapid Loan Growth Means Less Liquid Rapid Loan Growth Means Less Liquid Chart I-13The Dollar Abhors Liquid Bank Balance Sheets The Dollar Abhors Liquid Bank Balance Sheets The Dollar Abhors Liquid Bank Balance Sheets Moreover, by looking at the holdings of securities on banks' balance sheets, we can see that since 2012, they have even provided a leading signal on the dollar. This relationship currently points toward additional dollar strength (Chart I-14). The tighter relationship between securities holdings and the dollar than between total liquidity on banks' balance sheets and the dollar is due to the fact that securities can be re-hypothecated, and therefore can create a much greater supply of dollars in offshore markets than cash alone. The dollar-bullish liquidity backdrop is not limited to banks' balance sheets alone. Long-term portfolio flows into the U.S. have increased substantially in recent months, but still remain well below previous peaks (Chart I-15, top panel). Moreover, as the U.S.'s growing energy independence has prevented the trade deficit from expanding, the American basic balance of payments is now back in positive territory (Chart I-15, bottom panel). This too suggests that the U.S. is absorbing more dollars than it is supplying to the global economy. Chart I-14Declining Security Holdings Of Banks##br## Point To A Surge In The Dollar Declining Security Holdings Of Banks Point To A Surge In The Dollar Declining Security Holdings Of Banks Point To A Surge In The Dollar Chart I-15Money Is Flowing##br## Out Of The U.S. Money Is Flowing Out Of The U.S. Money Is Flowing Out Of The U.S. This reality is mirrored by the link between the bond issuance of U.S. firms and the dollar. When U.S. businesses increase their issuance of bonds, this tends to result in a strong dollar and weak majors (Chart I-16). The vigor of the U.S. economy and the deregulatory tendencies of the Trump administration suggest that U.S. companies could continue to issue more bonds, which will drag more liquidity out of the rest of the world and support the dollar in the process. The profit repatriation initiated by President Trump's tax reform is also supportive of the dollar. As Chart I-17 illustrates, when U.S. entities repatriate funds from abroad, the dollar tends to strengthen. Today, they are doing so with more gusto than ever. It is important to remember that this is not a reflection of American firms necessarily buying dollars directly. After all, a lot of their foreign earnings are already held in USD. Instead, it reflects the fact that when U.S. firms bring back their dollars into the U.S., the supply of high-quality collateral available in offshore markets declines, which means that acquiring dollars becomes more expensive.3 Chart I-16Rising Bond Issuance Helps The Dollar Rising Bond Issuance Helps The Dollar Rising Bond Issuance Helps The Dollar Chart I-17Trump's Tax Repatriation Is Dollar Bullish Trump's Tax Repatriation Is Dollar Bullish Trump's Tax Repatriation Is Dollar Bullish Finally, this decline in dollar liquidity is starting to be felt abroad, a phenomenon magnified by the slowdown in global trade. Global reserves are not increasing as fast as they were in 2017. As a result, a key component of global dollar-based liquidity, the Federal Reserve's accumulation of custodial holdings of securities, is also declining fast - a decrease exacerbated by the fact that the Fed is curtailing the size of its own balance sheet (Chart I-18). Historically, a decline in dollar-based liquidity is not only associated with lower global growth and a stronger greenback, but also with falling EM asset prices, EM currencies, and commodity currencies. Gold prices will provide insight on whether global liquidity remains favorable to the dollar and negative for EM assets. As Chart I-19 illustrates, gold has already broken down an intermediate upward sloping trend line, but is rebounding against the primary trend in place since the early days of 2016. If this rebound peters off and gold breaks below this primary trend line, it will be a clear indication that the decline in liquidity outside the U.S. is having a nefarious impact on global growth. This headwind to global economic activity will support additional dollar strength and asset price weakness. Chart I-18Declinning Dollar Bond Liquidity Declinning Dollar Bond Liquidity Declinning Dollar Bond Liquidity Chart I-19Litmus Test For Liquidity Litmus Test For Liquidity Litmus Test For Liquidity Bottom Line: The dollar faces near-term downside risk, but this move is likely to prove to be countertrend in nature as the global liquidity backdrop remains dollar bullish. The U.S. economy is currently sucking in global liquidity from the rest of the world, which is creating a scarcity of dollars in offshore markets. Not only is this scarcity inherently dollar bullish, but it also weighs on global growth, further flattering the dollar - a currency that performs well when global growth softens. As a result, while short-term investors should hedge some of their long-dollar exposure over the coming weeks, longer-term investors should use this correction to accumulate more dollars in order to benefit from another leg of the dollar's rally this fall. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Reports, titled "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", dated June 19, 2018, "Inflation Is In The Price", dated June 15, 2018, and "This Time Is NOT Different", dated May 25, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "It's Not My Cross To Bear", dated October 27, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: ISM manufacturing increased to 60.2 from 58.7; ISM prices paid declined to 76.8 from 79.5; Continuing and initial jobless claims both increased, disappointing expectations; Factory orders grew by 0.4% in monthly terms. After hitting deeply overbought levels, the dollar is losing momentum and risks correcting as economic surprises in the U.S. continue to decline while global ones are finding a floor, for now. Even if the dollar were to correct, budding inflationary pressures and higher growth in the U.S. are likely to prompt the Fed to hike at a faster rate than the rest of the developed world, providing the greenback with substantial upside. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: Manufacturing PMI improved for Italy, declined for France and remained unchanged for Germany, while decreasing for the euro area as a whole; Euro area retail sales increased by 1.4%, less than the expected 1.5%; Speculations about the ECB's actions are causing substantial movements in markets. The French 5/30 yield curve flattened by about 30 bps at rumors of an "Operation Twist" by the ECB, following the end of the APP in December. However, the euro has remained stable for around a month now, suggesting that markets have already discounted a substantially easier monetary policy. Despite this, the current slowdown in global growth is likely to have a further detrimental effect on the euro. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.3%. However, the Markit Services PMI came in at 51.4, underperforming expectations. Moreover, consumer confidence surprised to the downside, coming in at 43.7. USD/JPY has rallied by roughly 0.5% this past week. Overall we continue to be positive on the yen tactically, given that trade tensions as well as tightening in China should continue to create a risk-off environment where the yen thrives. However, on a longer term basis we maintain our bearish stance, as the BoJ will keep its ultra-dovish monetary policy in order to kick start Japan's moribund inflation. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been positive: Mortgage approvals outperformed expectations, coming in at 64.526 thousand. Moreover, Construction PMI surprised to the upside, coming in at 53.1. Finally, Markit Services PMI also outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1. GBP/USD has risen by roughly 1% since last week. Overall, we expect that cable will continue to depreciate, as any pullback in the dollar will likely be temporary. Nevertheless, the pound should outperform the euro, given that Europe will likely suffer more from emerging market weakness than the U.K. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was disappointing: The AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index declined slightly from 57.5 to 57.4; RBA Commodity Index in SDR terms grew by 6.6% only, less than the expected 7.5%; Building permits contracted by 3.2% on a monthly basis; The trade balance came out less than expected at AUD 827 million. In its latest monetary policy statement, the RBA highlighted that Australian monetary conditions have tightened, noting lower housing credit growth and tighter lending standards. As 85% of home loans are variable-rate mortgages, the highly indebted Australian households are extremely susceptible to a direct tightening in interest rates. Furthermore, wage growth at 2.1% and inflation at 1.9% implies a paltry 0.2% real wage growth, adding additional risk to household financial conditions. Alongside a clouded global growth outlook, the RBA is therefore unlikely to hike in this environment anytime soon. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 The kiwi has been relatively flat this week. Overall, even if a short-term bounce is likely over the coming weeks, we continue to be bearish on this cross, as commodity currencies like the NZD or the AUD should suffer in the current risk-off environment where liquidity is scarce. However, the New Zealand dollar will probably outperform the Australian dollar. After all, Australia is more exposed to the Chinese Industrial Cycle than New Zealand, being a large base metals exporter. Meanwhile, we remain bearish on the NZD on a longer term basis, as the new government will restrict immigration and implement a dual mandate for the RBNZ, both measures which will lower the neutral rate in New Zealand. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Despite the rapid increase in oil prices, the Canadian dollar has not been able to keep up. NAFTA tensions are placing downward pressure on the loonie, despite the Canadian economy's rosy conditions. The most recent Business Outlook Survey by the BoC shows increasing economic activity with a robust sales outlook. In addition, capacity utilization is becoming ever tighter, with the amount of firms finding it difficult to meet unexpected demand at the highest level since the history of the data. Furthermore, the labor market continues to tighten, as hiring plans continue to trend upward. This is likely to keep the BoC somewhat hawkish, despite trade worries. The strength of the Canadian economy is therefore likely to lift the CAD above other G10 currencies this year, except against the greenback. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The KOF leading indicator outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. Moreover, the SVME PMI index also surprised to the upside, coming in at 61.6. However, retail sales yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.1%. Finally, headline inflation came in line with expectations, coming in at 1.1%. EUR/CHF has risen by roughly 0.5% this week. Overall, we continue to be bullish on a tactical basis on the franc, given that trade tensions and the policy tightening in China should ultimately keep the current risk-off in place. That being said we are cyclically bearish on the CHF, as the SNB will continue to maintain an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance in order to prevent an appreciating franc to prevent the Swiss central bank from reaching its inflation target. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.8%. Moreover, registered unemployment continued to be very low at 2.2%, in line with expectations. USD/NOK has fallen by nearly 1% since last week, partly due to the rise in oil price, caused by a large draw in inventories. Overall we continue to be bullish on this cross, given that we maintain that the U.S. dollar will continue rising. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 A shift in stance at the Riksbank has been the major force behind the SEK's appreciation of around 2% against both USD and EUR in the past couple of days. The upward revision of CPIF inflation from 1.9% to 2.1% in both 2018 and 2019, and the downward revision of the unemployment rate were particularly important. In addition, three policymakers expressed hawkish views: Deputy Governors Flodén and Skingsley suggested a hike in October or December, while Ohlsson advocated for a higher repo rate of 25 bps now in response to stronger economic growth in both Sweden and abroad. Consistently, these members expressed similar opinions on the termination of foreign exchange interventions, as inflation is near its target. However, the underlying dovish intonations of Stegan Ingves still lurk within the Riksbank, presenting possible downside risk in the short-term. Nevertheless, these views support our longer-term bullish view of the SEK vis-à-vis the euro, based on diverging rate differentials. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Domino dynamics continue escalating within the EM universe confirming that a major bear market is underway. Several global cyclical market segments have recently experienced technical breakdowns. This confirms that global growth is slowing. It is not too late to short/sell EM risk assets. We reiterate the long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade. Feature The selloff in global risk assets continues to exhibit a pattern of falling dominos. It began with the breakdown in the weakest spots of the EM world, Turkey and Argentina, and then spread to Brazil and Indonesia. Only weeks later it hit other vulnerable EM markets such as South Africa. During this period, north Asian stocks and currencies - Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese - displayed resilience. It was tempting to argue that the EM selloff was being driven by idiosyncratic risks and was limited to current account deficit countries vulnerable to U.S. Federal Reserve tightening. However, in recent weeks these north Asian markets have plunged - making the EM selloff largely broad-based and pervasive. In our June 14 report,1 we argued that major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. Since then, the domino effect has escalated confirming our bias that EMs are in a major bear market. Several important markets and cyclical market segments have recently broken down, and investors should heed messages from them: Copper prices fell below their 200-day moving average; they have also broken down the trading range that had persisted since last September (Chart I-1, top panel). The precious metals price index seems to be sliding through the floor of its trading range of the past 18 months (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors such as mining, steel, chemicals and industrials have also broken their 200-day moving averages in absolute term (Chart I-2). They have also been underperforming the global equity index, which is consistent with the global trade slowdown that is beginning to escalate. Chart I-1Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Chart I-2Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Although Chinese PMI data have not been particularly weak, anecdotal evidence from the ground suggests that the credit tightening of the past 18 months is taking its toll on China's financial system and economy. There are numerous reports about bankruptcies of Peer-to-peer lending platforms and struggles in other parts of the shadow banking system. The selloff in Chinese onshore A shares confirms this. Presently, this market has become less driven by retail investors as it was back in 2015. Hence, one can argue that portfolio managers on the mainland are selling their stocks because they believe economic conditions are worsening. Meanwhile, international investors have so far been more sanguine. Importantly, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields are rising, heralding lower share prices (Chart I-3). Bond yields are shown inverted on this chart. The top panel is for EM overall and the bottom panel is for Asia only. Chart I-3EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices Chart I-4EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead Finally, the resilience of the U.S. equity index and corporate spreads has been due to robust domestic demand - the slowdown in global trade has not affected the U.S. However, odds are that the current global selloff continues to develop in a typical domino fashion. If so, the U.S. markets - equities and credit - will be the last dominos to fall but they will outperform their global peers. It is very unlikely that American stocks and credit markets will be able to sail through this EM storm unscathed. Notably, the resilience of the S&P 500 can be attributed to 10 large-cap stocks that are extremely overbought and likely expensive. This gives us more confidence to argue that this EM riot will meaningfully affect U.S. equity and credit markets. The link will be the U.S. dollar. The greenback will continue its unrelenting rally, which will trim U.S. multinationals' profits and weigh on the S&P 500. Bottom Line: EM risk assets are in a major bear market, and there is still a lot of downside. It is not too late to sell or underweight EM. This is despite EM's relative performance versus the S&P 500 is back to its early 2016 lows, as is the JP Morgan EM currency index (Chart I-4). News lows lie ahead. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018 available on page 17. Chart II-1More Upside In Long Indian/Short ##br##Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks Reiterating Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Trade This week we revisit our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade that we initiated on January 17.1 The trade is up only 5.7% since inception (Chart II-1), and with more monetary policy easing occurring in China and the recent sharp rise in non-performing loans (NPL) in India, it is appropriate to reassess this recommendation. Having updated the stress tests on the largest public banks in both countries and performed a new stress test on five Indian private banks, we are reiterating our strategy of being long Indian / short Chinese banks. A Perspective On Credit Cycles In India And China Both India and China have gone through major credit binges over the past 10-15 years, albeit over different time periods (Chart II-2A and Chart II-2B). Chart II-2ACredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Chart II-2BCredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China India's public banks have, in recent years, recognized bad loans and provisioned meaningfully for them. Non-performing loans (NPLs) for Indian public banks now stand at a whopping 15% of total outstanding loans, while provisioning levels have spiked to 7% of total loans (Chart II-3). Chart II-3NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China By comparison, Chinese public banks - the largest five banks, excluding policy banks, where the central government owns 70-80% of equity - are at the early stages of dealing with their troubled assets. Their NPLs and provisions stand at mere 1.8% and 3.3% of total outstanding loans, respectively (Chart II-3). Does such a wide disparity in NPL ratios between Chinese and Indian banks make sense? We do not think so. It is unlikely that Indian public banks are more poorly managed vis-a-vis Chinese public banks. All are run by government-appointed officials and are equally prone to politically driven and inefficient lending. Further, the magnitude of the Chinese credit boom since 2009 was considerably greater than India's during the 2003-2012 period. It is therefore highly unlikely that the resulting NPLs are substantially smaller in China than in India. In fact, several cases of Chinese banks hiding bad assets have recently been publicized.2 We strongly believe this phenomenon is widespread on the mainland, and that NPLs among Chinese public banks are being grossly underreported. It's All About Regulation The true vindication for this disparity lies in the drastically different stances that financial regulators in both countries have adopted to deal with the non-performing and stressed assets that their banks sit on. The Chinese authorities have been exhibiting greater forbearance with their commercial banks. For instance, in March, they lowered the provision coverage ratio for commercial banks. This is ameliorating Chinese commercial banks' short-term profitability and capitalization ratios. In brief, Chinese regulators have been very accommodative by allowing commercial banks to pursue "window dressing" of their financial statements and ratios. Indian regulators, by contrast, have been exerting relentless pressure on their banks to swiftly deal with their stressed assets at the cost of short-term profitability. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently introduced an extremely stringent framework for the recognition and resolution of NPLs. Indian commercial banks now have to immediately recognize stressed assets and find a resolution within 180 days. Failure to resolve a stressed account forces banks to take the defaulter to court in order to initiate bankruptcy procedures. Bottom Line: India has taken painful measures to push its banks to clean up their balance sheets. By comparison, China has so far been kicking the can down the road with respect to its banking system. As a result, the banks' balance sheet cleansing cycle is much more advanced in India than in China. Public Banks Stress Tests Below we present our updated stress tests which we performed on India's top seven public banks and China's top five public commercial banks (excluding policy banks). We used the following assumptions in our analysis (Tables II-1 and II-2): Table II-1Stress Test Of Top 7 Indian Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Table II-2Stress Test Of Top 5 Chinese Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Indian non-performing risk-weighted assets (NPA) to rise to 16% (optimistic), 18% (baseline), and 19% (pessimistic), up from 15% currently. For China, we assume NPAs to rise to 10% (optimistic), 12% (baseline), and 13% (pessimistic), up from 1.6% currently. Provided the magnitude and duration of China's credit boom has considerably surpassed that of India, the assumption of this stress test that NPAs will rise to 12% in China but 18% in India implies that Chinese public banks allocated credit much better than their Indian peers. Hence, this exercise in no way favored Indian banks over Chinese ones. We used risk-weighted assets to calculate losses. Risk-weighting adjusts bank assets for their riskiness which in turn makes comparisons between the two banking systems more sensible. Finally, we assumed a 30% recovery ratio (RR) for both countries. The RR on Chinese banks' NPLs from 2001 to 2005 was 20%. This occurred amid much stronger nominal and real growth. Thus, a 30% RR rate today is not low. The outcome of the tests are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of 18% NPA in India and 12% NPA in China, losses post recovery and provisions amount to 1.8 trillion rupees in the former (1.3% of GDP) and RMB 3.3 trillion in the latter (3.9% of GDP) (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 6). These losses would impair 41% of equity capital in India and 44% in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 7). Adjusting the current price-to-book value (PBV) ratios for public banks in both countries to the equity impairment under the baseline scenario lifts their PBV ratios to 1.5 in India and 1.7 in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 8). Assuming a 1.3 fair PBV ratio3 for banks in both countries, Indian banks appear overvalued by 15% and Chinese banks by 29% (Tables II-1 and II-2, last column). In other words, after the recognition and provisioning of reasonable levels of NPA, Indian public banks appear less overvalued than their Chinese counterparts. These results make sense to us; Indian public banks have been provisioning aggressively for their troubled assets, and bad news is somewhat discounted in their share prices. Chart II-4Loan Write-Offs Have Been Much ##br##Greater In India Than In China Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Remarkably, Indian public banks have also been writing off more bad loans than their Chinese counterparts. Chart II-4 shows cumulated write-offs of these public banks in India and China since 2010. Bad asset write-offs have so far amounted to RMB 1.2 trillion in China and 3 trillion rupees in India. This is equivalent to 2% and 8% as a share of current risk-weighted assets, respectively. Another way to compare and analyze NPA cycles between two countries is to assess the progress that each country has made toward resolving the full amount of outstanding bad assets - i.e. a full NPA cycle. We define a full NPA cycle in the following way: Total NPA losses under our baseline scenario, plus cumulated past write-offs. In order to measure progress toward resolving the full NPA cycle, we take the ratio of the stock of provisions plus cumulated write-offs and divide that by the full NPA cycle losses (i.e. [provisions + write-offs] / full NPA cycle losses). In India, assuming that NPAs on its largest public banks reach 18% of risk weighted assets - then the full NPA cycle for India would amount to 9.4 trillion rupees, or 26% of current risk-weighted assets (i.e. 6.4 trillion rupees in NPA remaining plus 3 trillion in write-offs made). Meanwhile, India's public banks' progress amounts to 5.6 trillion rupees. This is equal to 60% of India's full NPA cycle. By contrast, Chinese public banks' full NPA cycle would amount to RMB 8 trillion (or 14% of risk-weighted assets) under our baseline scenario. Further, China's banks progress amounts to RMB 2.6 trillion. This is equivalent to only 33% of the full NPA cycle in China. Hence, Indian public banks are closer to their peak NPA cycle versus their Chinese counterparts. Note that this particular analysis assumes no recovery in bad loans in either country. Further, the above analysis does not attune for the fact that Chinese banks have more risky off-balance sheet assets than their Indian peers. Incorporating off-balance sheet assets and liabilities would make the stress tests much more favorable for Indian public banks relative to China. Stress Test For India's Private Banks Private banks are a part of our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade. Indian private banks are also not insulated from regulatory clean-up efforts. In recent years, these lenders significantly boosted their credit to the consumer and service sectors. Higher than normal defaults have not yet transpired but this is a scenario that cannot be ruled out given the frantic pace of lending (Chart II-5). We performed a stress test on five4 large Indian private banks as well (Table II-3): Chart II-5India: Consumer And Service ##br##Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming Table II-3Stress Test Of 5 Large Indian Private Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns We assumed the following NPA scenarios: 6% (optimistic), 8% (baseline), and 9% (pessimistic), up from 5% currently. Similar to the above analysis, we used risk-weighted assets to calculate asset losses, though we used a recovery ratio of 50% for private banks instead of 30% for public banks. The basis is that private banks' lending has been concentrated on consumer loans and mortgages and the recovery ratio on these loans will likely be higher - especially taking into consideration the quality of collateral. Our results are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of an 8% NPA ratio, 7% of these private banks' equity would be impaired (Table II-3, column 7). The adjusted PBV would move to 3.9. This compares to a fair value of 3.3 for Indian private banks (Table II-3, column 8), which is the historical PBV mean of private banks in India. In other words, Indian private banks are overvalued by 18% - slightly more than their public peers (Table II-3, column 9). Bottom Line: Indian private banks are overvalued too but less so than Chinese public banks. Investment Conclusions We reiterate our long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade, initiated on January 17. We track the performance of this recommendation using the BSE's Bankex index for India and the MSCI Investable bank index for China in common currency terms - currency unhedged. In addition, among Chinese-listed banks, we maintain our short small / long large banks (Chart II-6). Smaller banks are more leveraged as well as exposed to non-standard assets and regulatory tightening than large public banks. Finally, the Indian bourse's relative performance against the EM equity benchmark negatively correlates with oil prices - the oil price is shown inverted on this chart (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Stay Short Chinese Small / Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Chart II-7India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices Given BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service expects oil prices to drop meaningfully in the second half of this year,5 this should help Indian equities outperform their EM peers. Besides, Indian banks are more advanced than many of their EM peers in terms of bad assets recognition and provisioning and that should also help the Indian bourse outperform the EM overall equity index in common currency terms. We reiterate our overweight stance on Indian equities within a fully invested EM equity portfolio. In contrast, we are neutral on China's investable stock index's relative performance versus the EM stock index. The main reason why we have not underweighted the Chinese bourse - despite our negative view on China - is the exchange rate; the potential downside in the value of the RMB versus the U.S. dollar in the next six months is less than potential downside in many other EM exchange rates. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks" dated January 17, 2018 available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the following article: http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2139904/pressure-chinas-banks-report-bad-debt-good-news-foreign 3 It is the average PBV ratio for EM banks since 2011. 4 HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, and IDFC Bank. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's Crude Oil Inventories: A Slippery Slope" dated June 21, 2018 available on page 17. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations