Fixed Income

Highlights Strengthening income growth is apparent in DM and EM trade volumes, real wages in the U.S., and industrial commodity prices, chiefly oil and copper. This indicates inflation at the consumer level will move higher in the near future, most likely in 2H2018. We believe 10-year U.S. Treasury Inflation-Indexed securities (TIPS) trading below 0.52 do not reflect the risk of higher inflation and are, therefore, going long at tonight's close. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices rallied 4.6% this week, following the OPEC 2.0 meeting in St. Petersburg. Although ministers did not announce additional cuts to the 1.8mm b/d agreed at the end of last year, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Kingdom would reduce August exports to 6.6mm b/d, which is more than 300k b/d below May's level, the latest month for which data are available from JODI. Given strong global demand, if this export reduction persists - and if others join the Kingdom - it would speed the drawdown in global inventories. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper pushed through $2.80/lb on the COMEX, a level not seen since May 2015. Underlying strength in EM economic activity - seen most recently in global trading activity (discussed below) - and a weaker USD are supporting base metals. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell below $1,257/oz earlier this week, and was trading ~ $1,250/oz going to press Wednesday. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge; the position is up 1.7% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Harsh weather is impacting grains. The USDA rated 62% of the U.S. corn crop in the 18 states comprising 92% of total output good or excellent last week, down from 76% in 2016. For beans, the split was 58% last week vs. 71% last year. Feature The expansion in global trade that began toward the end of last year continues, which, based on our modeling, indicates inflation at the consumer level likely will move higher in the short run (Chart of the Week). Trade expansion, particularly in EM economies, is consistent with rising incomes, which, all else equal, will keep industrial commodities - oil and copper, in particular - well supported, given income and demand for these commodities are closely aligned.1 These fundamentals dovetail with other indications of stronger growth, particularly in DM economies, where trade volumes also are growing (Chart 2). In the U.S., for example, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, and monetary conditions remain benign (Chart 3). Our colleagues at BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy believe the Fed actually may be behind the curve in reacting to nascent inflationary pressures emerging in the U.S.2 Chart of the WeekRising EM Trade Volumes Consistent##BR##With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Chart 2DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding##BR##At ~ 5% Pace ... Chart 3U.S. Labor Market Tightening,##BR##Financial Conditions Remain Loose Trade Growth Supports Higher Inflation U.S. CPI is highly correlated with EM trade volumes (imports and exports) as shown in the Chart of the Week. In recent research into inflation and trade, we also showed EM oil demand and world base metals demand are highly correlated with EM trade volumes.3 Chart 4EM Trade Volumes##BR##Continue To Strengthen Growth EM import growth continues to expand at a faster pace than DM growth (Chart 4). Year-on-year (yoy) EM import growth came in at 7.7%, a full 2 percentage points above DM growth. This is not to minimize DM growth - it finally broke out of its lethargy in May with a sharp advance of close to 6%, which will lift the trend rate of growth (the 12-month moving average, or 12mma) higher going forward. EM export growth in May was only slightly above DM growth for the month - 5.4% yoy vs. 5.2% yoy. These stout monthly trade performances will, in the next few months, offset the lethargic growth seen in EM and DM prior to the expansion begun at the end of 2016, as weaker monthly performance falls off the trend calculations. Over the year ended in May, within EM markets the annual trend in imports (the 12mma to May 2017) has barely grown more than 1% yoy, dragged down by a 6% contraction in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) and a 2.1% contraction in Latin American growth. The trend in EM - Asia's imports is up, rising 3.2% over the same period. For the year ended in May, imports into central and Eastern Europe were mostly flat; however, since November 2016, the trend turned sharply positive with 3.3% yoy growth. The trend in export volumes is expanding for in MEA and Latin America economies - 3.5% yoy trend growth (12mma) in MEA, and 4.4% growth in Latin America, which is slightly higher than the overall 2.2% rate of trend growth in EM exports. Still, lower oil and commodity prices, along with reduced volumes are curtailing an income recovery in these regions. Central and Eastern Europe's rate of export expansion leads EM generally at close to 4% yoy trend growth. Favor Gold And TIPS Ahead Of Higher Inflation As the labor market tightens and real-wage growth continues to outpace productivity growth, we expect U.S. inflation to pick up. Growth in trade volumes also will support growth in EM oil demand and world base metal demand, as noted above. This will feed into U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge (Chart 5). As we've highlighted in the past, there is very strong co-movement among these variables: We've found that, all else equal, a 1% increase in the non-OECD oil demand implies an increase in the core PCE of slightly less than 50bp. If the trend in overall EM trade volumes persists, the likelihood we will be increasing our estimate of non-OECD oil consumption for 2H17 and 2018 increases. U.S. CPI and EM trade volumes show similar co-movement properties, as the Chart of the Week shows. A 1% increase in EM import volumes translates into a 0.53% increase in the U.S. CPI, while a 1% increase in EM export volumes implies a 0.49% increase in the CPI. EM import volumes over the January - May 2017 interval have been growing at slightly more than 8% yoy, while exports have been growing at slightly more than 3%. Continued strength in the EM trade data implies U.S. CPI could grow well above what's currently being priced in inflation markets and by Fed policymakers. This leads us to favour gold and TIPS as inflation hedges. If we do get a larger-than-expected move in the U.S. CPI, gold should respond well. The modelling depicted in Chart 6 shows a 1% increase in the CPI translates into a 4.1% increase in gold. Chart 5Core PCE Will Pick Up##BR##As Commodity Demand Grows Chart 6Gold Will Pick Up##BR##Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves For this reason we recommend getting long U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which will appreciate as the U.S. CPI moves higher.4 We will be getting long as of tonight's close. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes. We are up 39.3% and 32.9% on the Brent and WTI positions, respectively, from last week, and 47.2% and 89.2% since inception. U.S. Monetary Policy Remains A Huge Risk To EM Trade As we've noted in the past, U.S. monetary policy can have an outsized effect on EM trade volumes. In an update of an earlier model using U.S. M2 and the broad trade-weighted USD (TWIB), we find a 1% increase in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a 1.1% drop in EM imports, while a 1% increase in U.S. M2 (broad money) implies an 85bp increase in EM imports (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive##BR##To U.S. Monetary Policy This demonstrates the feedback loop we've identified between U.S. monetary policy and EM trade. EM trade volumes affect inflation at a global level. We've found inflation in the U.S., EU and China to be co-integrated - i.e., these price gauges all follow the same long-term trend. Inflation and inflation expectations drive Fed policy, which drives the price formation of the USD - i.e., the FX rates included in the USD TWIB - and affect Fed policy on M2. These U.S. monetary variables, in turn, affect EM trade volumes. And so it goes ... Too-aggressive a tightening by the Fed as it normalizes its interest-rate policy regime could destabilize EM economies - either via too-sharp an appreciation in the USD TWIB, a larger-than-expected deceleration in M2 growth, or both - and negatively affect trade flows. At the end of the day, this would redound to the detriment of the U.S. economy, as the different feedback mechanisms kick in. This says the Fed's policy doesn't just affect the U.S. economy, or that EM economies essentially are on their own in the policy tools they deploy to adjust to Fed innovations. Like it or not, the Fed has to consider these types of feedback loops in its decision-making, since the Open Market Committee will be dealing with the fallout of its earlier policies. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes continue to grow yoy, continuing the trend that began at the end of last year. This performance, coupled with a tightening labor market in the U.S. and a still-loose financial backdrop, raises the odds inflation will exceed what's currently priced into market and Fed expectations. We are getting long U.S. 10-year TIPS at tonight's close, and remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The income elasticity for industrial commodities in EM economies is ~ 1.0, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?," published on July 21, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Among other things, the Global Investment Strategy team notes labor-market slack is dissipating, real wages are increasing, and easier financial conditions are spurring credit growth. Our colleagues note, "The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%." BCA's Global Investment Strategy believes U.S. inflation could move higher by 2H18. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals" and "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 29, and June 8, 2017. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 U.S. TIPS increase in value as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises, and fall in value as the index declines. Please see "TIPS: Rates & Terms" on the UST's TreasuryDirect web page (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_rates.htm). 5 This model covers 2000 to the present, using monthly data. The R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.96. These variables do not explain EM exports, which are not cointegrated with U.S. monetary variables. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights The RBA will not hike as quickly as markets expect. Weak wage growth and high underemployment suggest plenty of spare capacity. Inflation is only barely at the bottom of the central bank's range. Massive household debt levels will make it difficult for consumers to handle higher interest rates. Australian banks, although relatively healthy, are still enormously exposed to Australian housing and interest-only mortgages. House prices have nearly quadrupled since 2000 and exhibit the characteristics of a bubble. Still, it will likely take considerable monetary tightening before the bubble bursts. We do not think this will occur anytime soon. Maintain a neutral exposure to Australian government bonds, but enter into a 2-year/10-year Australian government bond yield curve flattener. Feature Chart 1Diverging Trends In##BR##The Australian Economy Australia remains one of the more difficult bond markets on which to take a decisive investment stance at the moment. The recent Moody's downgrade of Australian banks has put the spotlight back on the housing boom Down Under. With home prices continuing to climb - despite the introduction of macro-prudential measures on mortgage lending and with household indebtedness reaching exorbitant levels - investors are becoming increasingly concerned over a potential housing crash that could have spillover effects on the Australian banking system (Chart 1). At the same time, the domestic economy continues to suffer a hangover from the end of the mining boom earlier this decade, with excess capacity keeping inflation pressures subdued. Naturally, this has put the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in a difficult position. Interest rate cuts in response to low inflation would add further fuel to the housing bubble. On the other hand, any attempt to try and normalize the current accommodative monetary policy settings with rate hikes could trigger an unwanted surge in the Australian dollar and prompt a correction in house prices. The latter could lead to financial instability and raise recession risks with consumers already dealing with negative real wage growth, low savings and massive debt loads. In this Special Report, we examine Australia's monetary policy trajectory, analyze its concentrated banking sector and the potential risks from a downturn in house prices, and revisit our positioning on Australian government debt. Our conclusions still lead us to stick with a neutral duration stance and country allocation on Australian debt, but with a bias towards a flatter government bond yield curve. RBA On Hold... For Now Chart 2Aussie Bonds Caught##BR##In The Global Selloff Earlier this month, the RBA decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.5%. The central bank maintained its fairly neutral rhetoric, though they did cite that the "broad-based pick-up in the global economy is continuing." The central bank upgraded its economic forecasts, with real GDP growth now projected to reach slightly above 3% over the next two years. The minutes from that July 4 monetary policy meeting revealed that a discussion over the ideal level of the real cash rate took place.1 The conclusion was that equilibrium inflation-adjusted rate is now around 1%, meaning that the "neutral" nominal rate is 3.5% after adding an inflation expectation of 2.5% (the middle of the RBA inflation target band). That implies that the RBA has lots of catching up to do on interest rates once the next tightening cycle begins. The timing of that discussion on real rates came shortly after the rebound in global bond yields that began after policymakers in other countries, most notably the European Central Bank and the Bank of Canada, began hinting that a move to dial back the emergency monetary easings of 2015/16 was about to begin (Chart 2). With the RBA possibly sending a similar message, investors responded by raising interest rate expectations and bidding up the Australian dollar (AUD). 30bps of RBA hikes are now priced in over the next year, while our proxy for the market-implied pricing of the terminal (i.e. equilibrium) cash rate - the 5-year AUD overnight index swap rate, 5-years forward - shot up to just over 3%. We believe that this market repricing of potential RBA rate hikes is too optimistic. Australian monetary policy must remain highly accommodative for some time. Our more dovish case is based on our assessment of the RBA's policy mandates, which include full employment, price stability and the 'welfare of the Australian people'. Because of Australia's heavy economic exposure to iron ore prices, its largest export, we also include an outlook on the commodity to aid in our forecast of RBA policy. Employment: The latest readings on the Australian labor market have shown marked improvement so far in 2017 (Chart 3). The unemployment rate now sits at 5.6%. Employment growth is accelerating while the participation rate has edged higher in recent months. The National Australia Bank business confidence index is steadily improving, while job vacancies are at a five-year high. In the statement released after the June monetary policy meeting, RBA governor Philip Lowe stated that "forward-looking indicators point to continued growth in employment in the period ahead." Chart 3Labor Demand##BR##Picking Up... Chart 4...But All Signs Point To Lots##BR##Of Spare Labor Capacity While Governor Lowe also noted that the overall employment picture is 'mixed' in some aspects, we are far more pessimistic (Chart 4). The underemployment rate has been rising and now sits only slightly below its almost 50-year high of 8.8%.2 Part-time workers as a percentage of total employment has experienced a structural increase to nearly 33%, while hours worked have declined. Additionally, nominal wages have been flat and real wages are declining. This suggests that there is plenty of slack in labor markets and that Australia is still far from full employment, even with the headline jobless rate sitting slightly below the OECD's current NAIRU estimate of 5.9%.3 Inflation: Core inflation has been slowing since 2014 and only reached an anemic 1.45% in the first quarter of 2017 (Chart 5). Although headline inflation has rebounded over the past year, at 2.1% it remains only at the bottom of the RBA's 2-3% target range. Additionally, the downtrend in inflation expectations for 2017 appears to be intact. Chart 5Inflation Staying Within The RBA 2-3% Target Chart 6Australian Consumer Spending Slowing Weak productivity growth, leading to lackluster wage growth, is keeping overall inflation subdued. The trade-weighted currency has rallied since June, presenting an additional headwind for consumer prices. Even if the recovery in headline inflation persists and starts to pass through to core readings, policymakers will likely err on the side of caution. A higher realized inflation rate will be tolerated in the near term to ensure expectations stay well within the 2-3% target band - the RBA's definition of "price stability" - before any interest rate increases are considered. Consumer: Australian households face a challenging environment. Real wages are declining, with the wage cost index in a downtrend since 2011. Real retail spending growth has been slowing and is nearing negative territory, while consumer sentiment is quite pessimistic (Chart 6). As income growth is lacking, consumers have had to dip into savings to maintain consumption, with the savings rate collapsing from 10% to 5% over the last few years. Part of that decline is likely due to the rising cost of "essentials" spending, such as utilities, health care, education and transportation. The inflation rates for those sectors have been outpacing overall headline and core readings (Chart 7), suggesting that Australian households are saving less just to "make ends meet." Chart 7Spending More On The "Essentials" Overall, Australian consumers remain incredibly indebted. The household debt-to-income ratio is nearing 200% - the fourth highest figure among the OECD countries.4 Households have been able to handle the massive debt loads (so far) due to record-low interest rates, which have allowed debt service ratios to fall in line with long-term averages. However, hiking interest rates against this backdrop of highly leveraged consumers - especially given the huge exposure of Australian household balance sheets to overvalued house prices - could severely test the 'economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people' element of the RBA's mandates. In other words, the RBA would need to see decisive signs that the economy was pushing up against inflationary capacity constraints before embarking on a tightening cycle, for fear of the spillover effects of pricking the housing bubble too soon (as we discuss later in this report). Iron Ore: Historically, Australia's growth has been tightly linked to the performance of industrial commodities, in particular iron ore which represents nearly 20% of total Australian exports. Our commodity strategists are neutral on iron ore on a cyclical horizon and bearish on a strategic basis. Chinese iron ore import growth has recently ticked up, but should remain subdued as Chinese inventories are still high (Chart 8). Chinese property construction activity, which accounts for roughly 35% of total Chinese steel demand, remains depressed. Globally, iron ore supply is set to increase throughout the year as many mining projects will come on stream. On a longer-term basis, Chinese demand for metals will likely slow due to the ongoing structural economic shift away from excessive reliance on infrastructure investment and house-building to an economy based on consumption and services. Summing it all up, none of the RBA's policy mandates is being threatened in a way that should force policymakers to begin shifting to a less dovish stance. There is little evidence that Australia has reached full employment, inflation and inflation expectations remain within the RBA target band, growth momentum remains moderate and the housing bubble remains an existential risk to the future health of the economy. Additionally, Australian policymakers will want to keep rates as low as possible to ensure that a weaker currency helps prop up exports, support the economy in its transition away from the heavy reliance on mining investment. Real GDP growth fell below 2% and the output gap is still far in negative territory, suggesting plenty of slack (Chart 9). Our own Australian Central Bank Monitor has rolled over and is now barely in the "tight policy required" zone (bottom panel). Projected fiscal drag over the next few years will also dampen growth. RBA growth forecasts appear highly optimistic relative to median economist estimates. All of these factors point to a delay in rate hikes. Chart 8No Big Boost To Iron Ore Prices From China Chart 9No Pressure On The RBA To Hike Rates Bottom Line: Markets are overpricing the potential for RBA tightening. There is still spare capacity in labor markets, inflation is subdued and consumers cannot handle higher rates. Monitoring The Banks In June, Moody's downgraded all Australian banks, citing a "rise in household leverage and the rising prevalence of interest-only and investment loans" (Chart 10). The downgrade raised concern among investors, with banks being the largest component of the Australian equity market, and short positions have noticeably risen. Despite subdued income growth and enormous household debt levels, escalating house prices have supported consumption through the wealth effect, but this is clearly unsustainable. Political pressures are also building, as evidenced by the introduction of a bank levy in South Australia. Chart 10A Relentless Climb In Household Debt The Chairman of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), Wayne Byres, wants to make bank capital levels "unquestionably strong." His recent comments indicate that Australian banks will need to raise capital before 2020 to adhere to global standards, with some estimates reaching as high as $20bn (in USD). This process is crucial for instilling confidence in markets that banks can meet these targets through organic capital generation or dividend re-investment plans. As the increased capital required is relatively small - only 2% of the capital base of the Australian banks - it should not be difficult to raise that amount. The greatest risk to the financial system is still the exposure to Australian housing. For the four major banks, Australian housing loans make up slightly over 50% of their lending mix, far greater than for U.S. banks prior to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 (Chart 11). Of those loans, approximately 40% are non-traditional (interest-only, sub-prime, reverse mortgages). Several macro-prudential measures have been implemented by Australian financial regulators to decrease risks within the banking sector. The regulations have been focused on interest-only loans, which are more vulnerable to rate rises. Such loans are riskier, typically shorter in maturity and requiring larger deposit amounts. Banks are tightening their lending standards for these loans and risk weights will likely be increased, thereby requiring more capital. Additionally, the standard variable rate on interest-only loans has increased by 30-35bps and APRA has imposed a 30% cap on interest-only loans as a percentage of new loans. This will cause a meaningful decline in the risk profile of banks' mortgage books, as consumers with interest-only loans will shift to less expensive principal-plus-interest loans. Another source of risk is the Australian banks' increasing reliance on offshore short-term wholesale funding. When credit growth outpaces deposit growth, which has been the case, banks need to balance the equation through increased wholesale funding. This raises the potential for a liquidity crunch, as capital may be unavailable during a crisis. Credit growth to the private sector is slowing, though, reducing the immediate need for this type of funding. Additionally, authorities are prompting banks to substitute away from the heavy reliance on short-term wholesale funding through the implementation of a net stable funding ratio. This is defined as the available amount of stable funding (i.e. core deposits, equity and long-term wholesale funding) over the required regulatory level of stable funding. Banks will have until 2018 to increase this ratio above 100%. As a result, long-term wholesale debt issuance rose sharply in 2016 and that amount is projected to be relatively similar for 2017. Overall, current metrics suggest that Australian banks are fairly healthy, even before the additional capital requirements. Tier 1 capital ratios have gradually increased since 2007 and are fairly strong, non-performing loans are subdued and net interest margins are rising (Chart 12). In fact, Tier 1 ratios are substantially higher in Australia than they were in the U.S. prior to the Global Financial Crisis. Return-on-assets and return-on-capital have bounced slightly, although increasing capital will certainly dampen the earnings prospects for the Australian banks. Chart 11Australian Banks Heavily Exposed##BR##To Risky Mortgage Lending Chart 12Aussie Banks In##BR##Good Shape Right Now... Since the Moody's downgrade, credit default swap spreads for Australian banks have actually declined to near the 2014 lows, suggesting markets are not concerned about the risk of future bank stresses. We remain concerned, however. Macro-prudential measures on mortgage loan sizes and higher capital requirements are certainly welcome and will reduce perceived risks within the banking sector. However, these measures have done little to curb the rise in Australian house prices. Given their huge exposure to Australian housing, the banks will likely not be able to withstand a meaningful decline in house values - the outlook for which depends critically on the RBA's future monetary policy path. Bottom Line: Australia bank metrics are fairly healthy but they will need to raise more capital. This should not be too problematic. However, the banks' massive exposure to Australian housing, elevated number of interest-only mortgage loans and heavy reliance on short-term wholesale funding present substantial risks. Even if the bank capital levels are 'unquestionably strong,' they will not be enough to withstand a meaningful downturn in house prices. When Will The Housing Bubble Burst? House prices in Australia have nearly quadrupled since 2000. With the exception of Perth, house prices in the other major cities have continued their massive run-up over the last year, suggesting macro-prudential measures have done little to cool the market (Chart 13). Price gains have been supported by robust demand, both domestic and foreign. However, the steady rise in debt-fueled speculation (i.e. loans for investment purposes), the magnitude of the price increases, and the lack of any correction in over 25 years, suggest Australian housing is indeed in the midst of a bubble. On the supply side, steadily rising completions over the past decade have not curbed price gains (Chart 14). While construction has slowed since its peak at the end of 2016 and building approvals have declined, we find the argument that there has been a shortage in supply to be fairly weak. In fact, the rate of dwelling completions has outpaced population growth since 2012 and dwelling completions per 1,000 people are much higher in Australia than its G7 counterparts. Chart 13...Just Don't Prick##BR##The Housing Bubble Chart 14Supply Not Rising Enough To##BR##Slow House Price Growth History teaches us that bubbles never deflate calmly. Nevertheless, we view the likelihood of a systemic crash over the next 6-12 months as highly unlikely. While growth estimates may not meet the RBA's lofty goals, Australia will also not experience its first recession in over 25 years, which would crimp housing demand. The two most likely candidates to act as a catalyst for a housing downturn are therefore: a slowdown in capital inflows from Chinese property buyers and/or a shift to restrictive monetary policy from the RBA. It will not require a complete halt in capital inflows from China, simply a considerable slowdown, for the Australian housing market to come under pressure. While there is always a possibility for Chinese authorities to clamp down on outflows, particularly if the RMB comes under pressure, we view this as fairly unlikely. Current capital outflows have eased a bit and a long-term goal is to deregulate the capital account. Continued capital liberalization in China will aid in maintaining capital flows into Australian housing. Additionally, the millionaire class in China is growing and the private sector wants to diversify its assets. While Australian house prices are expensive, prices are far more affordable than those metropolitan areas such as Hong Kong, indicating Chinese money will continue to drift into Australian real estate. Chart 15A Long Way From Restrictive Policy Rates The more likely candidate for a bursting of the housing bubble is through the monetary policy channel. In the case of the U.S., multiple Fed rate hikes in the mid-2000s pushed monetary conditions into restrictive territory, prompting the housing crash. As we previously argued, the RBA will likely stay on hold for an extended period due to a lack of serious inflation pressures. Yet even if the RBA were to begin tightening sooner than we expect, it will take multiple rate hikes before monetary conditions become even close to restrictive. Using a simple measure of the equilibrium RBA cash rate, like a combination of Australian potential GDP growth and a five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation or the Taylor Rule formulation that we introduced in a recent Weekly Report, it is clear that the RBA is a long way from a restrictive policy stance (Chart 15).5 Bottom Line: Australian house prices have nearly quadrupled since 2000 and exhibit the characteristics of a bubble. Still, it will likely take considerable monetary tightening before the bubble bursts. We do not think this will occur anytime soon. Investment Implications We currently hold a neutral recommended stance on Australian government debt, both in terms of duration exposure and country allocation in global fixed income portfolios. Australian bond yields are above the lows seen in 2016 but have yet to break out of the structural downtrend with the benchmark 10-year now at 2.67% (Chart 16). We hesitate to go outright overweight on Australian debt in our model bond portfolio, however, even with our relatively dovish view on the RBA's future policy moves. Without any slowing in house prices, and with realized and expected inflation having clearly bottomed after last year's downturn, a big move lower in Australian bond yields is unlikely. At best, Australian yields will not rise by as much as we expect to see in the U.S. or Euro Area over the next 6-12 months. At the same time, if that view pans out, the Australian currency will likely underperform which will erode into the returns of an overweight Australian bond position (either through currency hedging costs or the outright losses on unhedged currency exposure). We do, however, see an opportunity to enter into an Australian 2-year/10-year yield curve flattening position (Chart 17). As previously mentioned, the short end of the curve will be anchored by an inactive central bank. The long end, however, faces multiple downward pressures. Macro-prudential measures and political pressures will continue to dampen credit growth. While we believe there is scope for realized inflation to grind a bit higher in the coming quarters, longer-term inflation expectations are likely to remain well-anchored. Additionally, the economic surprise index is elevated after several positive data releases and has plenty of scope for disappointment, which will limit any rise in longer-dated bond yields. Chart 16No Bear Market##BR##In Australian Bonds Chart 17Enter A 2yr/10yr##BR##Australian Curve Flattener The added benefit of entering a curve flattener is that the trade will likely work if our RBA view turns out to be wrong in a hawkish direction. If the RBA does indeed begin to hike rates sooner than we expect to deal with an improving economy or to begin deflating the housing bubble, this should put flattening pressure on the curve as the market prices in additional future rate increases. Only in the case of a breakout in longer-term inflation expectations that bear-steepens the curve, or a severe economic downturn that prompts RBA rate cuts and bull-steepens the curve, will a flattening trade underperform. Given our views on Australian growth and inflation, we see more likely scenarios where the curve flattens than steepens, particularly versus the only modest amount of flattening currently priced in the forwards. Bottom Line: Enter into a 2-year/10-year Australian government bond yield curve flattener. The short end of the curve will be anchored by an inactive central bank. On the long end, slowing credit growth, fiscal drag and an elevated economic surprise index will put downward pressure on yields. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/rba-board-minutes/2017/2017-07-04.html 2 The "underemployed" is defined as full-time workers on reduced hours for economic reasons and part-time workers who would like, and are available, to work more hours. 3 NAIRU = Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment. 4 https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Trading The Yield Curve: Butterfly trades, going long or short a bullet versus a barbell, offer exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from small parallel curve shifts. This will always be true provided that the cash allocation to the two bonds in the barbell is chosen to make the dollar-duration of the barbell equal to that of the bullet. Yield Curve Models: Using a model of the butterfly spread versus the slope, we can calculate how much curve steepening or flattening is being discounted by the current yield curve. Our strategy is to only implement a steepening/flattening butterfly trade if we think the curve will steepen/flatten by more than what is currently priced in. Empirical Performance: Incorporating the reading from our butterfly spread model improves on the performance of a purely macro-based yield curve trading strategy, both in theory and empirically. A purely mechanical trading rule based on our model also displays encouraging results over time. Feature One of the mandates of this publication is to take a view on the slope of the yield curve. Typically, we implement these views by recommending butterfly trades. A butterfly trade consists of two legs: A Barbell. Defined as a weighted combination of the two bonds that bound the yield curve segment you want to trade. For example, to take a view on the 2/10 slope, the barbell leg of the trade would be a weighted combination of the 2-year and 10-year notes. A Bullet. Defined as a bond that sits near the middle of the yield curve segment you want to trade. For example, the 5-year note would be a good choice for the bullet leg of a trade designed to profit from shifts in the 2/10 slope. A butterfly trade is defined as going long either the bullet or barbell while simultaneously shorting the other. This provides exposure to the slope of the curve because bullets tend to outperform barbells when the yield curve steepens and vice-versa (Chart 1 on page 1). Chart 1Gain Curve Exposure Through Butterfly Trades In this Special Report, we explain why butterfly trades are the best way to gain exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve. We also explain how we think about the trade-off between our macro-informed view of whether the yield curve will steepen or flatten and how much steepening/flattening is already discounted in the market. To determine what is discounted in the market we rely on fair value models of the butterfly spread, which are also described in this report.1 Note: In the remainder of this report we focus exclusively on the 2/10 slope of the curve and the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, although the logic of butterfly trades applies to any yield curve segment. We will explore different yield curve segments in future reports. The Mechanics Of Butterfly Trades The first choice that must be made when implementing a butterfly trade is how to weight the two bonds used in the barbell. The chosen weighting scheme depends on what sort of curve movement you want to profit from. For our purpose, which is to gain exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from parallel shifts, we adopt a dollar duration (DV01)2 weighting scheme. In this weighting scheme, the barbell weights are set so that the DV01 of the bullet leg of the trade matches the DV01 of the barbell. Table 1 presents an illustrated example of how this works. Table 1Butterfly Trade Performance Illustrated The top half of Table 1 shows an example based on hypothetical bonds derived from the Federal Reserve's par coupon constant-maturity yield curve. By definition, each of these hypothetical bonds trades at par ($100) and we use that fact along with the par coupon yield to calculate each bond's duration. After calculating the DV01 for each hypothetical bond by multiplying its duration by its price and dividing by 104, we can calculate that placing 40% of the barbell's cash in the 10-year note and 60% in the 2-year note leads to identical DV01's in both the bullet and barbell. Shocking The Yield Curve Identical DV01's in each leg of the trade means that if we go long one leg and short the other, our butterfly trade is immune to small parallel shifts in the yield curve. This is shown in the sixth column of Table 1, where we see that a +1 basis point parallel shift in the curve results in a loss of $0.0475 in both the bullet and barbell. It should be noted that this immunization from parallel curve shifts only works for small changes in yields. This is because while we have matched the DV01 between each leg of the trade, we have not matched the convexity. In this weighting scheme the barbell will always have a greater convexity than the bullet and will outperform in the event of a large parallel curve shift (in either direction). However, large parallel curve shifts are quite rare in practice. Usually, big yield moves are associated with either a steepening or a flattening of the curve. As such, convexity differences are only a minor consideration when we recommend butterfly trades. While the DV01 of each leg of the trade is the same, within the barbell itself there is a mismatch between the 2-year and 10-year notes. The fifth column of Table 1 shows that the weighted DV01 contribution to the barbell is $0.0117 from the 2-year note and $0.0357 from the 10-year note. The greater "weighted DV01" means that the barbell is more sensitive to changes in the 10-year yield than to changes in the 2-year yield. It is this mismatch that gives the butterfly trade exposure to the slope of the curve. For example, column 7 of Table 1 presents a scenario where the curve steepens by a small amount. Specifically, the 10-year yield rises 1 bp, the 2-year yield falls 1 bp and the 5-year yield remains flat. In this scenario, the losses in the 10-year note more than offset the gains in the 2-year note, causing the barbell to underperform the bullet. The opposite scenario is presented in column 8, which shows that the barbell outperforms the bullet when the curve flattens. The bottom half of Table 1 replicates the same analysis using the current on-the-run 2-year, 5-year and 10-year notes instead of hypothetical par bonds. It shows that the same logic and methodology apply in both cases. Bottom Line: Butterfly trades, going long or short a bullet versus a barbell, offer exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from small parallel curve shifts. This will always be true provided that the cash allocation to the two bonds in the barbell is chosen to make the dollar-duration of the barbell equal to that of the bullet. Modeling The Butterfly Spread Often, it is not sufficient to just know whether the curve will steepen or flatten and then put on the appropriate butterfly trade. In an efficient market the butterfly spread (defined in this report as the yield on the bullet minus the yield on the DV01-matched barbell) should adjust to expected changes in the slope of the curve so that no excess profits can be earned. We see evidence for this in the bottom panel of Chart 1 on page 1. Here, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread widens as the 2/10 slope steepens and vice-versa. The logic of this relationship depends on mean reversion. As the curve steepens investors start to discount a greater probability of curve flattening in the future. This means that investors will also demand greater compensation to enter steepener trades (long bullet, short barbell) as the curve steepens. We can take advantage of this positive relationship between the slope of the curve and the butterfly spread by creating a fair value model (Chart 2). The model is simply a regression of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread on the 2/10 Treasury slope. Chart 22/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model We tested the model using many different time intervals and settled on a regression coefficient of 0.14. As shown in Chart 3, the coefficient has been reasonably close to 0.14 for most of its history, with the exception of the period immediately following the financial crisis when the fed funds rate was pinned at the zero-lower-bound. The zero-lower-bound caused the relationship between the butterfly spread and the slope to weaken dramatically, but it began to re-assert itself once the Fed started to lift rates at the end of 2015. At present, the coefficient from a 3-year trailing regression is 0.17. Chart 3Choosing The Right Beta What's Priced Into The Curve? One obvious application of our fair value model is that we can identify periods when the butterfly spread is too high or too low relative to the slope of the curve. Put differently, when the butterfly spread's deviation from fair value is above zero, the bullet looks attractive relative to the barbell. When the deviation from fair value is below zero, the barbell looks attractive compared to the bullet. However, if we make a few simplifying assumptions, we can express the model's deviation from fair value in a more helpful way. If we assume that: The butterfly spread will revert to its fair value during the next 6 months During this time period returns to the bullet and barbell legs of the trade will be equal3 Then we can calculate how much the slope of the curve must change to satisfy both conditions. In other words, we can answer the question of what change in the slope is being discounted by today's butterfly spread. Chart 4How Our Models Add Value The third panel of Chart 2 shows the change in the 2/10 slope that is currently being discounted by the butterfly spread. The bottom panel shows the level of the slope that is implied by the model compared to the actual 2/10 slope. A recent example of why it's important to consider what is priced into the curve is shown in Chart 4. Last December 20,4 we recommended entering a butterfly trade that is long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell, a trade designed to profit from curve steepening. Since then, however, the 2/10 slope has flattened 44 bps. Despite the curve flattening, our recommended trade is 21 bps in the money. The reason is that, according to our model, on December 20 the butterfly spread was discounting a whopping 49 bps of flattening during the next 6 months. Significantly more flattening than what actually occurred. We continue to recommend this trade going forward, even though the curve is now already priced for 6 bps of 2/10 steepening during the next six months. This means that we will need the yield curve to steepen more than 6 bps for our trade to outperform. We continue to see this as the most likely outcome.5 Bottom Line: Using a model of the butterfly spread versus the slope, we can calculate how much curve steepening or flattening is being discounted by the current yield curve. Our strategy is to only implement a steepening/flattening butterfly trade if we think the curve will steepen/flatten by more than what is currently priced in. Empirical Testing Charts 5 and 6 illustrate the importance of relying on both a macro call about the slope of the curve and the reading from our butterfly spread model. In Chart 5 we plot 6-month excess returns in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell versus the 6-month change in the 2/10 slope. While we see a reasonably strong positive correlation, there are still many periods of steepening when the bullet underperforms and many periods of flattening when the barbell underperforms. Chart 5Performance Of A Bullet Over Barbell Strategy Vs. ##br##The Actual Change In The 2/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Chart 6Performance Of A Bullet Over Barbell Strategy Vs. The Difference Between ##br##Actual And Discounted Change In The 2/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Chart 6 plots the same 6-month excess return, but this time against the difference between the actual change in the 2/10 slope and what was priced-in according to our model. Here we observe a much stronger correlation and fewer examples of the butterfly trade not performing as expected. Going one step further, Table 2 shows the results of implementing butterfly trades over 6-month horizons assuming perfect knowledge of how the yield curve will move. The first row shows that, during our sample period, a long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade produced positive returns 71% of the time when the 2/10 slope steepened, for an average un-levered 6-month return of 34 bps. Similarly, long 2/10 barbell, short 5-year bullet trades produced positive returns 71% of the time when the 2/10 slope flattened, for an average un-levered 6-month return of 24 bps. Table 2Performance Of Butterfly Trades Over 6-Month Horizons ##br##Assuming Perfect Knowledge Of Curve Movements (1976-Present) The bottom two rows of Table 2 show that the performance of these trades improves when we also incorporate the reading from our model, only putting on trades when the steepening or flattening is greater than what was initially priced in. In fact, incorporating the output from our butterfly spread model led to 128 instances when we would have reversed the trade that would have been implemented if all we knew was which direction the slope would move. Out of those 128 instances, 60% of the time the change led to a better trade. Cumulatively, incorporating the reading from the model produced an extra return of more than 11% throughout our entire sample. Can We Just Follow The Model? This begs the question of whether we can create a mechanical trading rule based purely on the output from our butterfly spread model that will produce positive results. To test this we first look at excess returns in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell in 6-month periods following different readings from our model (Table 3). Table 3Performance Of Butterfly Trades Over 6-Month ##br##Horizons Based Only On Our Model (1976-Present) We find that bullets outperform barbells in more than 70% of 6-month periods when the 5-year bullet appears more than 5 bps undervalued. Similarly, barbells outperform in 56% of 6-month periods when the 2/10 barbell is more than 5 bps undervalued. Second, we created a trading rule where every month you invest either: Chart 7A Model-Driven Curve Trading Strategy 100% in the 5-year bullet, if the bullet appears more than 5 bps cheap on our model. 50% in the 5-year bullet and 50% in the 2/10 barbell, if the bullet is between 5 bps expensive and 5 bps cheap compared to the barbell. 100% in the 2/10 barbell, if the barbell appears more than 5 bps cheap on our model. The cumulative results from this model since 1980 relative to a curve-neutral benchmark that is always invested 50% in the bullet and 50% in the barbell are shown in Chart 7. We observe a clear outperformance over time, with relatively few periods of sustained losses. Bottom Line: Incorporating the reading from our butterfly spread model improves on the performance of a purely macro-based yield curve trading strategy, both in theory and empirically. A purely mechanical trading rule based on our model also displays encouraging results over time. Going forward we will consider both the output from our butterfly spread model and our macro view of the yield curve when recommending butterfly trades. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 These models were first introduced in a Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report from February 1, 2002. Please contact your sales representative to request a copy. 2 DV01 is the dollar value of a basis point. It measures the dollar change in the price of a given bond assuming a one basis point change in its yield. It is calculated as the bond's duration times its price, divided by 104. 3 A 6-month time period was arbitrarily chosen to line up with our preferred investment horizon. We also need to assume how much of the discounted shift in the yield curve occurs at the long-end relative to the short-end. We assume that half the change in slope occurs at each maturity, but the results are not very sensitive to changing this assumption. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on our macro outlook for the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The Fed is behind the curve in raising rates, as is the Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and the Swedish Riksbank. In contrast, the Bank of Japan, the ECB, and the Swiss National Bank have little need to tighten monetary policy. Accordingly, investors should favor USD, CAD, SEK, NZD, and to a lesser extent, AUD. EUR, CHF, and JPY will weaken. GBP will trade sideways. Short-term momentum could push EUR/USD to 1.18, but the euro will ultimately reach parity against the dollar next year, as the Fed is forced to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. Stay structurally long DXY. Go long SEK/CHF. We are closing our longstanding overweight positions in Australian and New Zealand government bonds for a handsome profit. Remain overweight global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish in the second half of 2018. Feature The Fed: It's Time To Get A Bit More Hawkish In our December 2015 report "The Fed Makes An Unforced Error," we made the case that the Federal Reserve would regret its decision to tighten monetary policy.1 Subsequent events validated this view: U.S. growth sagged in the first half of 2016, leading to a sharp flattening in the yield curve. It would be another 12 months before the Fed raised rates again. As bond prices and the economic data evolved over the course of 2016, our recommendations changed accordingly. On July 5th, we published a note entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" arguing that it was time to take profits on long duration positions.2 As luck would have it, this was the exact same date that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Fast forward to the present and investors are once again debating the next steps that central banks are likely to take. However, unlike in 2015, a strong case can be made that the Fed is now behind the curve in raising rates, rather than ahead of it. There are three reasons for this: There is less slack now than in 2015. The unemployment rate stands at 4.4%, down from 5% in December 2015. The broader U-6 unemployment rate has fallen even more, from 9.9% to 8.6%. Other measures of labor market slack are also closing in on their past business-cycle lows (Table 1). Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles The neutral interest rate has likely risen somewhat over the past 18 months (Chart 1). Household debt has continued to decline as a share of disposable income. The share of national income going to labor has increased. Wage growth among lower-income workers who tend to spend most of their paychecks has accelerated. All this should give consumers the wherewithal to spend more, warranting higher interest rates. Bank balance sheets have also continued to improve, as evidenced by the recent stress test results. In addition, fiscal policy has eased modestly and could ease even more if Congress is able to pass legislation cutting taxes later this year or in early 2018. Financial conditions have eased significantly since the start of the year, which should boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 2). This is in sharp contrast to 2015, a year when financial conditions tightened sharply. Easier financial conditions are boosting credit growth. The annualized 3-month change in bank credit has accelerated from 1.1% in April to 4.2% at present. (Chart 3). Chart 1Households Have The Wherewithal To Spend More Chart 2Financial Conditions Have Eased Chart 3Credit Growth Has Picked Up The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%. If that were to happen, the unemployment rate would end up being nearly a full percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. It is possible, of course, that the true value of NAIRU is lower than official estimates suggest. Older workers change jobs less frequently, and so an aging workforce tends to produce less frictional unemployment. The internet has also improved the ability of companies to fill vacancies with suitable workers. On the flipside, declining geographical mobility and falling demand for low-skilled labor may have raised structural unemployment. On balance, we are skeptical that the current estimate of NAIRU of 4.7% - already one percentage point below its post-1960 average (Chart 4) - is significantly overstated. A tighter U.S. labor market will put upward pressure on wages. While recent wage data has been on the soft side, our wage tracker is still growing twice as fast as in 2010 (Chart 5). Indeed, for all the talk about how wage growth is "inexplicably" slow, real wages have been rising more quickly than productivity for three straight years now - the longest stretch since the late 1990s (Chart 6). Chart 4NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards Chart 5A Stronger Labor Market Will Lead To Faster Wage Growth Chart 6Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Inflation: A Lagging Indicator When will accelerating wage growth translate into sharply higher price inflation? Probably not this year. Historically, inflation has been the mother-of-all lagging indicators. Core inflation peaked at 2.5% in August 2008, eight months after the start of the recession. In fact, core inflation has topped out in every single business cycle over the past 40 years only after the expansion has ended and the recession begun (Chart 7). Likewise, core inflation typically bottoms several years after the economic recovery is underway. This suggests that inflation could stay subdued for the next 12 months as the labor market slowly overheats, before moving higher in the second half of 2018. Chart 7Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator If the Fed drags its feet in raising interest rates, it will be difficult to achieve a soft landing. Stabilizing the economy is akin to landing a plane: You don't just need to know the speed at which you have to hit the runway, you also have to time your descent in order to touch the ground at precisely the right speed. Even if the Fed knew where the neutral interest rate stood (which it doesn't), tightening monetary policy too late could end up pushing the unemployment rate to such a low level that it has nowhere to go but up. And as we have shown before, once the unemployment rate starts rising, it generally keeps rising, owing to the presence of numerous negative feedback loops.3 The Fed has arguably already fallen into the trap of waiting too long. If so, gradual rate hikes this year will give way to more aggressive hikes late next year, setting the stage for a recession in 2019. The Bank Of Canada Turns Hawkish On the other side of the 45th parallel, the Bank of Canada raised rates last week and signaled that further hikes lie in store. The BoC revised up its GDP growth forecasts for 2017 and 2018. It also indicated that the output gap would close later this year, rather than next year as it had earlier projected. The Bank of Canada's newfound optimism was bolstered by the most recent Business Outlook Survey, which pointed to accelerating growth, dwindling spare industrial capacity, and an increasingly tight labor market (Chart 8). The moose in the living room is the Canadian housing market (Chart 9). Central bankers are generally reluctant to use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to target excessive property prices. However, when stricter macroprudential regulations fail to do the job, the standard prescription is to tighten monetary policy slowly but early. The Bank of Canada has done the former but not the latter. Consequently, as my colleague Jonathan LaBerge argued in last week's Special Report, the coming housing bust is likely to be a nasty affair.4 This will be the price the Bank of Canada pays for being behind the curve. Chart 8Canadian Growth Picture Is Upbeat Chart 9Housing Bubbles Abound For now, we remain long the Canadian dollar in our currency recommendations. We are expressing this view by being long CAD/EUR, a trade that has gained 3.5% in the nine weeks since we initiated it. We also recommend being underweight Canadian government bonds within a global fixed-income portfolio. It is important to stress, however, that these are 12-month views. Most Canadian mortgages are floating rate. Higher borrowing costs will likely trigger a housing bust late next year or in 2019, forcing the Bank of Canada to slow or even reverse the pace of rate hikes. The RBA And RBNZ ... Behind The Curve Too Australia and New Zealand have also been grappling with dangerously overvalued housing markets, and just as in Canada, the RBA and RBNZ have been behind the curve in responding to the brewing excesses. That is starting to change. The Reserve Bank of Australia struck a hawkish tone in the July 4 meeting minutes released this week, sending the Aussie dollar to a 26-month high against the greenback. The RBA highlighted the improvement in business conditions and a tightening labor market. It also indicated that the "neutral cash rate" was 3.5%, two points higher than the rate of 1.5%. Australia's terms of trade have been recovering of late and this should support the economy as well as the Aussie dollar (Chart 10). The RBNZ is even further behind the curve than the RBA (Chart 11). Nominal GDP is growing at over 6% and retail sales are expanding at nearly 8%. Population growth has risen sharply in recent years due to increased immigration, leading to greater demand for housing. The government has increased infrastructure spending and cut taxes. The unemployment rate has fallen back to an 8-year low of 4.9%, while the terms of trade is approaching record-high levels. Chart 10RBA Behind The Curve... Chart 11... And RBNZ Too? With all this in mind, we are closing our longstanding overweight positions in Australian and New Zealand government bonds for gains of 59.5% and 74.2%, respectively.5 Riksbank: End Of NIRP? The Swedish repo rate stands at -0.5%, despite the fact that the output gap has moved into positive territory (Chart 12). Inflation is still slightly below target, but is moving higher. The Riksbank is taking notice of the changing economic environment. The central bank backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The facts on the ground support this decision. Sweden's GDP is now 0.7% above potential and the economy continues to strengthen. The Riksbank's resource utilization indicator points to a sharp acceleration in Swedish inflation in the coming quarters. Nonfinancial private credit has reached 237% of GDP, up from 106% in 2000. If the Riksbank falls too far behind the curve, it will be forced to jack up rates very aggressively down the road, reviving the specter of the debt crisis of the early 1990s. The ECB, SNB, And BoJ: Take It Easy Whereas a strong case can be made that the central banks discussed above are behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, the same cannot be said for the ECB, Swiss National Bank, or Bank of Japan. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008 and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany (Chart 13). Moreover, as we discussed two weeks ago, the neutral rate in the euro area remains very depressed.6 Thus, even if the euro area economy were close to full employment, the ECB would still not have much scope to raise rates. Chart 12NIRP In Sweden: R.I.P. Chart 13Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany In this light, investors have gotten too optimistic about the ability of the ECB to tighten monetary policy. While the ECB will further taper asset purchases as early as this autumn, sustained rate hikes are still a few years away. Mario Draghi explicitly said during his press conference yesterday that "the last thing that the governing council may want is actually an unwanted tightening of the financing conditions." This is in sharp contrast to the Fed, which is trying to tighten financial conditions by raising rates. Swiss monetary conditions are far from accommodative, despite a policy rate that remains buried in negative territory (Chart 14). Core inflation is close to zero and wage growth is anemic. An overvalued currency has offset the benefits from lower interest rates. Given the SNB's policy of intervening in the currency markets to keep EUR/CHF within a reasonably tight range, the recent appreciation of the euro will further add to the deflationary pressures weighing on the Swiss economy. Investors should position for a weaker franc (and euro) in the months ahead. Go long SEK/CHF (Chart 15). Chart 14The Swiss Economy Still Needs Low Rates Chart 15Long SEK/CHF Similar to the ECB and the SNB, the Bank of Japan is in no position to tighten monetary policy. Core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year (Chart 16). The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. And even if inflation were to rise, the government would likely want to tighten fiscal policy before contemplating removing the monetary punch bowl. The Bank Of England: A Tough Call If one didn't know what transpired last June, the case for tighter monetary policy in the U.K. would be fairly straightforward. The unemployment rate is at a 9-year low and inflation is well above target. The trade-weighted pound has weakened by 21% since November 2015, which in most cases, would translate into stronger growth in the years ahead. Reflecting these points, our Central Bank Monitors show that the U.K. is more in need of tighter money than any other major developed economy (Chart 17). Chart 16BoJ: In No Position To Tighten Chart 17The Message From Our Central Bank Monitors Brexit negotiations are likely to cast a pall over the economy, however. The EU will be forced to take a tough line with the U.K., for fear that the Brexit vote could prompt other countries to follow's Britain's lead. BCA's geopolitical strategists ultimately expect a "hard Brexit" to be averted, but things may need to be brought to the precipice before that happens. The pound is cheap and so we do not expect it to weaken significantly from current levels. Nevertheless, the upside for both sterling and gilt yields will remain constrained until political uncertainty abates. Investment Conclusions As a rule of thumb, investors should favor currencies in economies whose central banks are behind the curve. Such central banks are likely to find themselves in a position where they have to scramble to tighten monetary policy. We noted on July 7th that short-term momentum favors the euro and that we would not be surprised if EUR/USD reaches 1.18 over the coming weeks. Looking further ahead, the appreciation of the euro in the first half of this year will weigh on growth in the remainder of 2017 and into early 2018. This will force the ECB to cool its heels. In contrast, U.S. growth should accelerate. Against the backdrop of diminished spare capacity, this will prompt the Fed to turn more hawkish. We expect EUR/USD to fall to 1.05 by year-end, and reach parity next year as the Fed ramps up the pace of rate hikes. The market is betting that the Fed will deliver fewer rate hikes than implied by the 'dots'. Our hunch is that the Fed will deliver more hikes than what its forecast suggests, especially starting early next year when inflation is liable to accelerate. Bullish sentiment towards the dollar has collapsed. Investors should turn contrarian and position for a stronger greenback over the next 12 months. In addition to the dollar, we like the Swedish krona, Canadian dollar, and New Zealand dollar. The Aussie dollar should also perform reasonably well, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up, as we expect it will. The Japanese yen remains our least favorite currency. Despite the dollar selloff, USD/JPY has managed to gain 3% since mid-April. As the Fed and a number of other central banks raise rates, the spread in yields between foreign government bonds and JGBs will widen. This will push down the yen, helping Japanese stocks in the process. As far as overall risk sentiment is concerned, another rule of thumb says that stocks rarely fall on a sustained basis outside of recessions (Chart 18). We do not expect a recession in the U.S. or elsewhere until 2019. This implies that investors should maintain an overweight position in global equities for now, favoring cyclical sectors over defensive ones. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Fall On A Sustained Basis Outside Of Recessions Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Makes An Unforced Error," dated December 18, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Calculated as the total excess return on the 10-year bond index relative to global government benchmark since inception in 2009, foreign-currency hedged since 2014. The 10-year yield for New Zealand government bonds has dropped from 4.28% at the time of inception to 2.94% today. The 10-year yield for Australian government bonds has fallen from 4.10% to 2.74% over this period. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Draghi's Dilemma," dated July 7, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate Sweden's Riksbank. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar. Bond investors should underweight Swedish government bonds versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged. Equity investors should remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. The risk of persistent inflation will rise only after the next severe global downturn. Feature "Is the 2% inflation target still a very realistic aim?" - Ewald Nowotny, ECB Governing Council member As the ECB Governing Council gathers for its latest monetary policy meeting, some voices within its ranks are starting to question the ECB's first commandment: the 2% inflation target. Respected and influential ECB Governing Council member, Ewald Nowotny, has asked whether there should "be an easing of the 2% inflation goal in the sense of setting a range instead of a clear-cut target." Across the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Riksbank is one step ahead. Recently, it suggested (re)introducing a variation band of 1% either side of the 2% inflation target1 to acknowledge that persistent 2% inflation is very difficult, or impossible, to achieve (Chart of the Week). More concerning, the single-minded pursuit of 2% inflation creates risks and instabilities. The Riksbank's inflation target has forced it into an absurd position: with inflation undershooting for over five years, the policy interest rate is now at -0.5% when Swedish GDP growth was recently running at a world-beating 4.5% clip (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Mission Impossible:##br## 2% Inflation Chart I-2Absurd: Interest Rate At -0.5% ##br##When Growth Is At 4.5% Hence, Riksbank Governor, Stefan Ingves, recently proposed that "central banks should also have the explicit responsibility for financial stability." The former governor of the Bank of Japan, Masaaki Shirkawa agrees. "My worry with setting a precise number (of 2%) is that it can crowd out other very important considerations, such as financial stability." What's So Special About 2% Inflation Anyway? Given the almost religious significance of the 2% inflation target for central banks, you would think that there is a well-established theoretical and empirical basis both for inflation targeting and for the 2% number. But you would be wrong. As we explained two years ago in our special report Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation,2 inflation targeting only became established in the 1990s, and the magic 2% number was pulled out of the air. Chart I-3The Riksbank Has Undershot ##br##Its 2% Inflation Target For 5 Years At the Federal Reserve's July 1996 policy meeting, Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that if the aim of inflation targeting was a truly stable price level, it entailed an inflation target of 0-1% (because measured inflation slightly overstates true inflation.) But one of the persons present was not so sure. The dissenter was a Fed governor called Janet L. Yellen. She countered that if inflation ended up at 0-1%, the zero-bound of interest rates would prevent "real interest rates becoming negative on the rare occasions when required to counter a recession." Yellen's pragmatism won the day, and Greenspan summarized "we have now all agreed on 2%" Meanwhile in Europe, the ECB's original inflation target of below 2% was close to Greenspan's proposal of 0-1%. But in 2003 the ECB changed its inflation target to its current "below but close to 2%". The reason, according to Mario Draghi: "The founding fathers of the ECB thought about the adjustment within the euro area, the rebalancing of the different members. To rebalance these disequilibria, since the countries do not have the exchange rate, they have to readjust their prices. This readjustment is much harder if you have zero inflation than if you have 2%." Hence, the Fed, ECB and other central banks are targeting inflation at a low but arbitrary number, 2%, to always allow some leeway for negative real rates; and in the case of the ECB, to allow easier convergence among disparate euro area economies. But as the Riksbank and other central banks have now acknowledged, trying to hit and hold inflation at a point target of 2% is both futile and dangerous (Chart I-3). Why 2% Inflation Is A Mission Impossible The crux of the issue is that inflation is a notoriously non-linear phenomenon. A defining feature of a non-linear phenomenon is that you cannot just turn it up or down like the volume dial on your music system. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and violent phase-shifts from stability to instability, making it very difficult to hit and hold a point target like 2%. To experience this difficulty for yourself, try pulling a brick across a table using an elastic band. Initially, the brick doesn't move because of the friction with the table. But at a tipping point the brick does move, and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick's acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - the brick doesn't move - to violent instability - the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is near-impossible to pull the brick across the table at a constant speed of, say, 2mph. A very similar dynamic applies to inflation. The system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - near-zero inflation - to violent instability. It is near-impossible to keep inflation at an arbitrary constant of, say, 2%. To understand why, consider the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. Theoretically and empirically, both M and V are notoriously non-linear phenomena (Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7) - because they are subject to the same conditions as the brick pulled by an elastic band: inertia, then self-reinforcement with delayed controlling feedback. Chart I-4The Velocity Of Money... Chart I-5...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Chart I-6The Money Multiplier... Chart I-7...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon As policymakers try to take inflation away from its natural state of near-zero, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible. Hence, the product MV experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Well-intentioned policymakers would think they could apply a controlling feedback to MV. But how? Economic and monetary data are noisy, imprecise and take time to collect and parse. As we have shown, inappropriate and/or delayed feedback just adds to the system's instability. Seen in this light, inflation-targeting in the 1990s worked because central banks were just helping economies move from an unnatural state - uncontrolled inflation - towards a natural state - price stability (Table I-1 and Chart I-8). But now that economies have reached a natural near-zero inflation rate, point targeting an unnatural inflation rate is both futile and dangerous. Table I-1For 700 Years U.K. Inflation ##br##Averaged Near-Zero Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Persistent Inflation Was ##br##Very Unusual... Until The Late 20th Century The Investment Implications The ECB's Nowotny argues that "the 2% inflation target should include a certain flexibility." The Riksbank's Ingves agrees, and adds that extreme and unprecedented loose monetary policy endangers financial stability. Central banks tend not to volte-face as it damages their credibility. But to us, it is clear that the ECB and Riksbank are switching their focus from sub-2% inflation to their economies' robust growth. And to the risk that ultra-accommodative policy poses to financial stability and market distortion. Hence, the era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate the Riksbank whose policy has inevitably mirrored Frankfurt - for fear of a sharp appreciation of the Swedish krone versus the euro. Our currency mantra this year has been "euro first, pound second, dollar third." The strategy has performed extremely well, and into this mix we can add the Swedish krone. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Long SEK/USD Is An Alternative ##br##To Long EUR/USD Chart I-10Underweight Swedish Bonds Is An Alternative To Underweight German Bunds The bond market corollary is to underweight Swedish government bonds - just like German bunds - versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged (Chart I-10). The equity market implication is to remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. Finally, given that inflation could ultimately phase-shift to violent instability, when should we worry about it? Not yet. To expand the broad money supply, someone has to borrow money. So if policymakers really want to create rampant inflation, the government has to borrow and spend money at will,3 with the central bank creating it. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy becomes irresponsibly loose. The risk of this remains low until the next severe downturn - when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation. Until then, own some bonds. Our preference is Spanish Bonos and U.S. T-bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The Swedish FSA has said that the Riksbank should delay the change until a parliament review of Riksbank policy rules is completed in about 2 years. 2 Published on August 20, 2015 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! Fractal Trading Model* The sell-off in Spanish media (Mediaset Espana Comunicacion) is technically overdone. This week's trade is to go long Mediaset Espana Comunicacion versus the market with a 5% profit-target and symmetric stop-loss. In other trades, long FTSE100/short IBEX35 hit its 4% profit-target, while short EUR/USD hit its 2% stop-loss For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights To change our EM strategy, we would need to change our view on China and accept that China's credit bubble - especially in combination with the ongoing policy tightening - does not constitute a material risk to mainland growth in the foreseeable future. We are simply not ready to make this call. It is a matter of time until mainland's growth relapses and China-related plays (including commodities and EM) enter a bear market. Even though the headline growth numbers out of China have so far remained solid, their second derivatives - change in growth rate - have turned negative. Asian export growth has already rolled over, and a slowdown will become pronounced in the months ahead. This will likely halt and reverse the EM rally. Having taken into consideration various factors, we believe it would be wrong to change our strategy at the moment. Feature The U.S. dollar has tumbled and EM risk asset prices have spiked following last week's testimony by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen to Congress. This week we review what has gone wrong with respect to our view, as well as weigh the pros and cons of altering strategy at this point. Our bearish view on EM has been contingent on two pillars: Our downbeat view on EM over the past year has rested on higher U.S. bond yields pushing up the U.S. dollar. This view played out in the second half of last year but has been wrong since early this year. We have continuously argued that EM risk assets are vulnerable due to China's growth relapse amid ongoing liquidity tightening and the lingering credit bubble. Even though the headline growth numbers out of China have so far remained solid, their second derivatives - change in growth rate - have turned negative (more details are provided in the section below). We maintain that our theme of slower mainland growth still has high odds of playing out later this year. We expect meaningfully weak data (on a first-, not second-derivative basis) out of China before year end. If equity markets are forward-looking, they should start pricing in such a scenario now. What has surprised us is the fact that EM investors have utterly and altogether ignored political woes in a number of EM countries, lower commodities prices and lingering structural and cyclical problems in many developing economies, as well as China's tightening amid the credit excesses. Instead, EM investors have singularly focused on downward surprises in U.S. inflation - even ignoring strong employment data in America. Remarkably, EM share prices historically plunged when U.S. inflation and inflation expectations dropped (Chart I-1). Hence, the year-to-date negative correlation between EM stocks and U.S. inflation is out of sync with the historical relationship. We review some other inconsistencies and contradictions below. Chart I-1U.S. Inflation And EM Stocks Were Historically Positively Correlated, But Not This Year Inconsistencies In Prevalent Narrative The purpose of this section is not to justify our investment strategy, which has been wrong-footed, but to elaborate on financial markets' nuances that have been much less clear-cut than popular financial market narratives imply. The reality is much more complicated than the following prevalent among investors narrative: low U.S. inflation entails little tightening by the Fed, resulting in a weak U.S. dollar and an EM rally. There are some contradictions in this story: If U.S. household consumption growth in nominal terms is as weak as portrayed by the latest retail sales and inflation readings (Chart I-2), how can U.S. corporate earnings continue to grow at a double-digit rate, as most investors currently expect? The only way this can happen is if productivity growth is really strong and profit margins continue to expand. Productivity is a black box that no one can measure accurately in real time. If underlying productivity growth is indeed robust, the bull market will persist and bears will be humiliated. The snag is that productivity assessment is a judgement call, and only time will reveal true productivity dynamics. Not having more insight, we have so far assumed that the official statistics on productivity in the U.S. and EM are generally right. If U.S. productivity data are close to reality, unit labor costs - calculated as wages divided by productivity - are rising faster than underlying inflation (Chart I-3, top panel). This entails that U.S. corporate profit margins should be contracting. The middle and bottom panels of Chart I-3 portray our macro proxy for U.S. corporate profit margins based on core PCE inflation and unit labor costs. Chart I-2The U.S.: Very Low Nominal Growth Chart I-3A Macro Proxy For U.S. Corporate Profit Margins Entails Shrinking Margins Overall, if low inflation and weak U.S. nominal retail sales data are a true representation of current U.S. economic conditions, the corporate profit outlook cannot be benign, and American stock prices should be lower - not higher. If lower inflation and nominal growth of recent months in the U.S. were an aberration, U.S. interest rate expectations will have to be revised higher and the U.S. dollar will rally. We are even more puzzled by the nature of the drop in U.S. bond yields, and EM financial markets' reaction to it. Typically, EM risk assets negatively correlate with real (TIPS) yields (Chart I-4), and positively correlate with the inflation component of U.S. bond yields (Chart I-1 on page 1). The decline in U.S. bond yields since the beginning of the year has been almost entirely driven by the inflation component, with U.S. real yields actually not dropping at all. Yet, EM risk assets have rallied sharply. This goes against the predominant correlation of the past several years and is very puzzling. In short, the historical correlations between EM stocks and currencies on one hand and U.S. real yields and inflation expectations on the other, have in the past six months reversed for no reason. If the weaker U.S. dollar and lower U.S. bond yields/rate expectations represent an unwinding of the "Trump trade", why has the S&P 500 - which has surged amid "Trump trade" - not yet corrected? Broadly speaking, if U.S. bond yields drop further and the greenback continues deprecating, it would signal a major relapse in U.S. growth and U.S. share prices will dive. On the contrary, if U.S. growth is solid, the dollar selloff is overdone and the greenback is close to a major bottom. In addition, EM risk assets have decoupled from commodities prices, as we have detailed many times since early this year. Also, as a side note, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar decoupled from precious metals prices this whole year up until last week. These are non-trivial divergences that are by and large puzzling. Finally, EM net earnings-per-share revisions have rolled over, yet share prices have continued to move higher (Chart I-5). Such decoupling has simply never happened before. Chart I-4Another Breakdown In Correlations: ##br##EM Currencies And U.S. TIPS Yields Chart I-5EM EPS Net Revisions ##br##Have Failed To Turn Positive Besides, EM EPS net revisions have not turned positive throughout this 18-month rally. In short, analysts in aggregate have not upgraded their EPS estimates for EM companies at all. Bottom Line: There are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies that cannot be explained by the prevailing financial market narrative. What About Global Growth? One way to square the above inconsistencies is to argue that the drop in the U.S. dollar and the EM rally have little to do with U.S. dynamics and much to do with strength in the rest of the world, especially outside the U.S. This is coherent reasoning. We review global growth dynamics in this section and elaborate on China in the following one. Without disputing the fact that there has been a notable recovery in global growth and trade in the past year, we would like to emphasize that on a rate-of-change (second derivative) basis, global trade, and particularly Asian export growth, has already rolled over, and a slowdown will become pronounced in the months ahead. Consistently, the U.S. dollar should rise or EM risk assets should reverse their gains in the near future, if and as global trade/EM growth falters: The pace of export growth in key Asian manufacturing hubs such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore has already rolled over (Chart I-6). Both Taiwanese exports of electronic parts and the country's overall exports to China have rolled over - the latter two lead global export volumes and Chinese exports, respectively, by a few months, as shown in Chart I-7. Chart I-6Asian Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart I-7Global Export Growth Has Peaked The reason why Taiwanese exports of electronic parts lead global trade cycles is because these parts are used in the assembly of final products, and producers order and receive these parts before final products are made and shipped. Similarly, a lot of Taiwanese exports to China serve as inputs into final products assembled in China and are shipped worldwide. This is why Taiwanese shipments to China lead mainland aggregate exports. Provided U.S. consumer spending has recently weakened, as depicted by core retail sales, U.S. imports are bound to slump sooner than later (Chart I-8). Consequently, Asian and European shipments to America are likely to roll over soon. Imports are more volatile than domestic demand, reflecting inventory re-stocking and de-stocking cycles. The decoupling between the not-so-strong U.S. final demand and robust imports suggests an inventory re-stocking cycle in the U.S. has recently been taking place. As such, this will be followed by a period of destocking, i.e., weaker imports, weighing on the rest of the world's shipments to the U.S.. A genuine area of global growth acceleration has been continental Europe. Undoubtedly, growth is extremely robust in these economies, and there is no reason for European economies to plunge into recession. That said, U.S. growth dynamics following the 2008 crisis have generally been "two steps forward, one step back." This has typically held true for post-crisis economic recoveries in all major economies. There is no reason why Europe's economic recovery will be any different. As such, having experienced "two steps forward" in the past year, European growth is more than likely to take a "one step back" - i.e., slow down a bit. In brief, if growth dynamics in Europe were to resemble that of the U.S. post-crisis era, mean reversion in European growth is overdue. Finally, global auto sales growth has rolled over decisively (Chart I-9, top panel). The deceleration is very broad-based including the U.S., Europe (Chart I-9, bottom panel) and China (please refer to Chart I-12 on page 10). Chart I-8Weak U.S. Retail Sales Entail ##br##U.S. Import Deceleration Chart I-9Global Vehicle Sales ##br##Growth Heading South Bottom Line: If the global growth recovery has been behind the U.S. dollar selloff and the EM rally, the forthcoming reversal in global trade will at minimum halt and reverse the EM rally. China is critical to our theme of slowdown in global trade. China's Growth: Looking Beyond Headlines China's headline growth numbers for GDP and industrial production have been on the strong side, but forward-looking variables such as money growth and various liquidity measures entail a major deceleration by the end of this year: Narrow and broad money growth - which have historically led the business cycle in China - have relapsed (Chart I-10). Although credit growth has not yet decelerated, money often leads or coincides with credit growth, suggesting a credit slowdown is forthcoming. Furthermore, commercial banks' excess reserves at the central bank are key to their lending capacity. The top panel of Chart I-11 demonstrates that China's money multiplier - the ratio of broad money-to-excess reserves, or banks' assets-to-excess reserves - have surged, implying that banks are over-extended. Chart I-10China: Money Leads Business Cycle Chart I-11China: Bank Loan Growth To Slow In addition, banks' shrinking excess reserves point to a rollover in bank loan growth in the months ahead (Chart I-11, bottom panel). The pace of growth in China's many economic indicators has already rolled over - i.e., their second derivative has turned negative. These include total and ex-oil imports, electricity output and auto production (Chart I-12). Finally, the central bank will continue to tighten liquidity. The recent softness in interest rates may have been temporary, as June is a month in which liquidity demand spikes, and the People's Bank of China probably did not want a replay of the June 2013 SHIBOR crisis. Notably, both core consumer prices and consumer services inflation measures in China are grinding higher (Chart I-13). This, along with "a mandate of preventing bubble formations," will all but ensure that the PBoC tightens further. Chart I-12China: The Pace Of Growth Has Already Rolled Over Chart I-13China: Inflation Is Rising Tighter liquidity/higher interest rates along with regulatory tightening on banks and shadow banking will cause credit growth to slow down considerably, weighing on the real economy. Bottom Line: In China, liquidity is tightening and interest rates are rising amid a credit bubble. Meanwhile, investors remain complacent, and the overwhelming majority of the global investment community believes that China will be able to deflate its financial bubbles and deleverage its corporate sector without a meaningful impact on the real economy. The reality is there has been no historical precedent of this occurring in any country. Strategy Considerations: The Dollar And China Hold The Key The greenback holds the key to EM strategy - not only because it mechanically drives the performance of EM financial markets, but also because it reflects many global financial and economic trends. Having taken into consideration various factors, we believe it would be wrong to change our strategy at a time when: There has already been capitulation by U.S. dollar bulls, the greenback is technically oversold and the Fed will soon commence reduction of its balance sheet. All of this makes us reluctant to change our view on the U.S. dollar and EM at the moment. Notably, the U.S. dollar is at a critical technical level against numerous currencies (Chart I-14A and I-14B). Chart I-14AThe U.S. Dollar Is At A Critical Technical Level (II) Chart I-14BThe U.S. Dollar Is At A Critical Technical Level (I) In short, it is too late to abandon a positive view on the dollar. We have been and remain much more certain about the U.S. dollar strength versus EM, commodities, and Asian currencies than against the euro. Meanwhile, EM financial markets are overbought, and implied volatility across most global financial markets in general and EM in particular is at record-low levels (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Implied Volatilities Are Depressed ##br##Across Most Asset Markets The Fed will shrink its balance sheet, and high-power U.S. dollar liquidity will diminish. Besides, the PBoC will continue to tighten liquidity and guide interest rates higher amid lingering credit excesses. These developments are at the margin bullish for the greenback, and invariably bearish for EM/China-related plays. China's industrial cycle has peaked and Asian exports have rolled over, as we have illustrated above. China's narrow money (M1) growth is slowing, and broad money (M2) growth is at an all-time low. Money leads business cycles in China. Our biggest concerns have been and remain continued strong flows to EM and how well risk assets have been trading. Past flows are no guarantee of future flows. However, both DM and EM risk assets have been trading really well. It is hard to know and forecast when this will change. That said, we maintain that the next 20% move in EM share prices and commensurate moves in other EM risk assets will be down - not up. Weighing the pros and cons, we are reluctant to alter our view and recommended strategy at the moment. To change our EM strategy, we would need to change our view on China and accept that China's credit bubble - especially in combination with the ongoing policy tightening - does not constitute a material risk to mainland growth in the foreseeable future. We are simply not ready to make this call. It is a matter of time until mainland growth relapses and China-related plays (including commodities and EM) enter a new bear market. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. TIPS: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of disappointing realized inflation and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our TIPS Financial Model. Inflation: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Feature Chart 1Bond Bear Takes A Pause Globally, a shift toward less accommodative monetary policy remains the dominant market theme. However, the U.S. bond selloff did pause last week following some disappointing macro data and comments from Fed policymakers that were interpreted as dovish. The market is now discounting 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down slightly from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 1). The dovish comments came from Governor Lael Brainard in a July 11 speech1 and were echoed one day later by Fed Chair Janet Yellen in her semi-annual testimony to Congress.2 Both comments related to the stance of monetary policy in relation to its neutral (or equilibrium) level. In my view, the neutral level of the federal funds rate is likely to remain close to zero in real terms over the medium term. If that is the case, we would not have much more additional work to do on moving to a neutral stance. - Fed Governor Lael Brainard Because the neutral rate is currently quite low by historical standards, the federal funds rate would not have to rise all that much further to get to a neutral policy stance. - Fed Chair Janet Yellen Contextualizing "Neutral" Contrary to how many have interpreted the above remarks, neither Chair Yellen nor Governor Brainard meant to suggest that the rate hike cycle is close to finished. In fact, Yellen went on to say in her testimony that: ...we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years... This is the first important piece of context needed to understand how the Fed views the neutral rate. The Fed views the neutral rate as variable, and sees it increasing over time. This becomes clear when we look at the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections and note that the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. Second, the Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart 2 shows this estimate of the neutral rate alongside the real federal funds rate - deflated using 12-month trailing core PCE. We observe that the real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months, in part because the Fed lifted rates three times but also because inflation weakened. Chart 2Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral We calculate that if the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays flat, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 at 0.02%, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. In sum, the LW neutral rate is a useful tool for assessing the path of Fed policy. If the real fed funds rate gets too close to neutral, then the Fed will probably need to see inflation rise before it delivers another hike. This would appear to be the situation we are in at the moment. We continue to expect that the Fed will start to unwind its balance sheet in September, but will need to see some signs that core inflation is increasing before lifting rates again. Our forecast still calls for higher core inflation during the next few months and another Fed rate hike in December (see section titled "Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month" below). A related issue is why the Fed thinks the neutral rate will rise during the next few years. In arguments that date back to Ben Bernanke's tenure,4 the Fed maintains that headwinds related to household deleveraging and balance sheet repair have depressed the neutral rate since the Great Recession and financial crisis. There is some evidence to support this stance. The LW neutral rate correlates quite strongly with the growth rate of household debt (Chart 3). Although the neutral rate hasn't kept pace so far this cycle, household debt is growing off an unusually low base (Chart 3, bottom panel) and that may mean it takes longer for the neutral rate to rise. There is one final important application for the neutral fed funds rate, and it relates to the timing of the corporate credit cycle (Chart 4). Typically, excess returns to corporate bonds do not start to decline until the following three criteria are met: Chart 3Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Chart 4Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Deteriorating corporate balance sheet health (Chart 4, panel 2) Restrictive monetary policy i.e. the fed funds rate above its neutral level (Chart 4, panel 3) Tightening bank lending standards (Chart 4, bottom panel) Notice that in the prior two cycles the real fed funds rate actually rose above the LW neutral level before our Corporate Health Monitor started to signal deteriorating corporate health. In contrast, corporate balance sheets have already aggressively added leverage this cycle and accommodative policy is the sole support for spreads. In this environment, we view inflation and the stance of Fed policy as the most important factors determining the medium term outlook for corporate bond returns.5 Policy Wildcard: A New Fed Chair In 2018 One potential wrinkle in our outlook for monetary policy is that Janet Yellen's term as Fed Chair will end in February 2018. If history is any guide, we should expect to learn the identity of the new Fed Chair sometime this fall. While we would not completely rule out the possibility that Janet Yellen is re-appointed, recently, the chatter is that Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee, is the frontrunner for the position (see Box). Box 1: Fed Chairs Since 1970 Gary Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970 - 1978) was head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978 - 1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987 - 2006) served as the Chair of Ronald Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014 - present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team. Paul Volcker (1979 - 1987) was the lone exception to this rule, he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke were all reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. Chart 5Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 To see how the timing of the Fed Chair appointment can matter for markets in the short-term, we need only look back to the autumn of 2013 when two candidates - Larry Summers and Janet Yellen - were in the running for the position. Rightly or wrongly, Summers was viewed as the more hawkish candidate and once he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectation of a more dovish Fed (Chart 5). Bottom Line: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. What's Driving The TIPS Breakeven Rate? We maintain an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities on the view that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates will eventually settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, once core inflation gets back to the Fed's 2% target. At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 1.76%. In that sense, we view the medium to longer-run driver of TIPS breakevens as the path of inflation itself. However, we also acknowledge that breakevens are highly correlated with other financial asset prices, which can explain many of the near-term moves (Chart 6). In fact, our TIPS Financial Model - a model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate based on the oil price, the dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio - was flagging that breakevens were far too wide earlier this year (Chart 6, panel 1). Through this lens, the year-to-date decline in breakevens can be attributed simply to overvaluation being wrung out of the market. Digging a little deeper into the model, we find that breakevens have maintained their strong positive correlation with energy prices this year (Chart 6, panel 2), while non-energy commodity prices exhibit a weaker positive correlation (Chart 6, panel 3). Interestingly, the negative correlation between breakevens and the trade-weighted dollar has broken down during the past year (Chart 6, bottom panel). If dollar weakness persists, we would eventually expect it to translate into higher realized inflation - via higher import prices - and also wider breakevens. Other pipeline inflation measures, which tend to correlate with breakevens, are sending mixed signals. Core PPI inflation for intermediate goods remains elevated (Chart 7, panel 2), while the supplier deliveries component of the ISM manufacturing survey is trending higher (Chart 7, panel 3). The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey has followed breakevens lower (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers Chart 7TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers Bottom Line: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of weak realized inflation data (Chart 7, panel 1) and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our Financial Model. Going forward, we expect TIPS breakevens to increase as the realized inflation data bounce back. Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month Core CPI increased just 0.12% month-over-month in June, marking the fourth consecutive downside surprise. The year-over-year growth rate also moderated from 1.74% to 1.71%, and the weakness was once again broad based across the four major components (Chart 8). The cost of shelter continues to decelerate from a high level, and our model - based largely on the rental vacancy rate - forecasts further moderation in the months ahead (Chart 8, panel 1). Core goods prices continue to deflate, though dollar weakness should filter through to higher core goods prices in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). In last week's report we showed that non-oil import prices have already moved higher in response to the weaker exchange rate.6 The big drag on inflation in recent months has been the failure of core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) to respond to rising wage pressures. The third panel of Chart 8 shows that core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) correlates strongly with the employment cost index. Further, the employment cost index itself has been accelerating since 2010 alongside improvement in the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 9). Chart 8Core CPI Components Chart 9Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals We expect wages will continue to accelerate as the labor market remains on a steadily improving path. Eventually this will bleed into core services inflation, as it has in the past. In the near term, the employment cost index for the second quarter will be a crucial input for the direction of both inflation and monetary policy. It will be released on July 28. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170711a.htm 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170712a.htm 3 Laubach, Thomas, and John C. Williams. 2003. "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), November, 1063-1070. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights DM Rates Strategy: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. U.S. Corporate Bond Liquidity: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Feature Chart of the Week2013 Revisited Developed Market (DM) policymakers continue to push towards a less accommodative monetary stance. Last week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) became the second central bank to hike rates this year, following the Fed's earlier tightenings. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to signal a move to reduce the pace of its asset purchases, likely to be announced at the September policy meeting. A very public debate has opened up among the members of the Bank of England (BoE) policy committee against the stagflationary backdrop of high inflation and cooling growth. This current backdrop is reminiscent of the 2013 synchronized global economic upturn that also put pressure on policymakers to become less accommodative according to our Central Bank Monitors (Chart of the Week). That year was terrible for government bonds, but spread product held in well given the solid growth backdrop. A big difference now is that there is greater evidence of diminished economic slack (lower unemployment rates, higher capacity utilization) than in 2013, so the underlying inflation pressures should be greater. Realized inflation rates remain subdued in most countries (excluding the U.K.), but central bankers are attributing that to temporary factors that should soon fade. That forecast may prove to be wrong, which risks a potential policy mistake if interest rates move up too much or too fast. For now, however, central banks are in charge and bond investors should position accordingly by limiting duration exposure and overweighting growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds versus sovereign debt. A Country-By-Country Summary Of Our Interest Rate Views With central banks now in the process of adjusting policy settings to varying degrees, financial markets are starting to show a greater level of diversification than in previous years. This can be seen in the moves in bond yields, equity markets and currencies since the speech by ECB President Mario Draghi on June 27 that ignited the latest bond sell-off (Chart 2). The largest yield moves have occurred in the Euro Area, U.K., Canada and Australia, which have also coincided with currency strength and equity market underperformance in those countries. As the markets now try to sort out the growing divergences between monetary policies, this has opened up opportunities for diversification of duration exposures, country allocation and yield curve strategies. This week, we present a brief summary of our individual country recommendations for the remainder of the year. United States: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection The Fed remains on track for a move to begin reducing its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting, with another rate hike expected in December. The inflation data of late has started to raise concern among some FOMC members about how many more interest rate increases will be necessary for this tightening cycle. We expect U.S. growth to show solid improvement over the latter half of 2017, and for this current downdraft in realized inflation to soon bottom out led by tightening labor markets and the lagged impact of this year's decline in the U.S. dollar. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher in the months ahead, led more by rising inflation expectations that will bear-steepen the yield curve. (Chart 3) Chart 2Market Moves Since Draghi's Portugal Speech Chart 3U.S. Rates Strategy Summary Germany: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection France: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection Italy: underweight duration, underweight country allocation (versus Spain), steeper yield curve The ECB is clearly signaling that a taper of its asset purchase program will begin in 2018. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mario Draghi will speak at the upcoming Fed Jackson Hole conference in late August.1 Similar to his speech at the ECB Forum in late June, this will likely be another opportunity for Draghi to prepare financial markets and other central bankers for the ECB's policy shift. We expect an announcement of a "Fed-like" tapering of bond purchases that will begin in January and end sometime in the fourth quarter of 2018. A rate hike is still some time away, most likely in the first half of 2019 at the earliest. The ECB will want to see more signs of lower unemployment and sustainable higher core Euro Area inflation before contemplating higher short-term interest rates - especially given the likely positive impact on the euro from such a move that would risk an unwanted tightening of financial conditions. There is far more risk in longer-dated bond yields to reprice via higher term premia and/or inflation expectations, thus we are recommending a bearish stance not only on European duration and country allocation, but also a bias toward steeper yield curves (Chart 4 & Chart 5). Tapering will also put upward pressure on Peripheral European yields and spreads, particularly in Italy, as risk premiums normalize away from the tight levels seen during the ECB asset purchase program. We do not anticipate a rout in Italian debt given the current improvements in the domestic economy and the positive moves seen in consolidating and recapitalizing the troubled Italian banking sector. However, we do see continued underperformance of Italian debt versus Spanish sovereigns, thus we are maintaining an overweight stance on Spain versus Italy in our model bond portfolio (Chart 6). Chart 4Germany Rates Strategy Summary Chart 5France Rates Strategy Summary Chart 6Italy & Spain Strategy Summary U.K.: underweight duration, neutral country allocation, neutral yield curve We have been maintaining a neutral allocation to U.K. Gilts, but with an underweight duration exposure and a curve steepening bias (Chart 7). The growing rift among the members of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee does suggest that there could be more two-way risk in U.K. interest rates than at any time seen since last year's Brexit vote. The BoE responded to that political surprise with rate cuts and a new round of asset purchases, even though the U.K. economy was operating at full employment at the time and inflation pressures were rising. Now, the chickens have come home to roost for the BoE, with inflation remaining stubbornly high despite signs of slowing growth (Chart 8). With real wage growth slowing substantially and household saving rates at very low levels, the risk of a consumer spending slowdown - that the BoE was flagging earlier in the year - is increasing. Chart 7U.K. Rates Strategy Summary Chart 8Stagflation In The U.K. Given the ongoing uncertainties from the upcoming Brexit negotiations that will likely continue to weight on business confidence and investment spending, and with consumption likely to continue losing steam, we see little case for the BoE to seriously consider a rate hike before year-end. We are only recommending a neutral stance on Gilts, though, as realized inflation continues to run well above the BoE's target, supported by the stubbornly soft British pound. We continue to recommend a steepening bias on the Gilt curve until there is more decisive evidence that U.K. inflation is rolling over. Japan: overweight duration, maximum overweight country allocation, neutral yield curve and neutral inflation protection We continue to recommend a maximum overweight on Japanese government bonds (JGBs). JGBs are a low-beta market with the BoJ still targeting a 0% level on the benchmark 10-year yield, even as other global bond markets sell off. The BoJ has been particularly aggressive in capping any rise in JGB yields of late, offering to buy 10-year bonds in unlimited size and also increasing its purchases at shorter maturities (Chart 9). With Japanese inflation still struggling to stay in positive territory, even with the economy estimated to be operating at full employment, the BoJ will do the only thing it can do to put a floor under inflation - keep JGB yields at low levels to trigger a new wave of yen weakness and, hopefully, some imported inflation pressures via the currency. Against this backdrop, JGBs will continue to outperform other DM bond markets during this move towards strong growth and less accommodative monetary policies outside of Japan. Stay overweight Japan against global hedged bond benchmarks. Canada: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, flatter yield curve, long inflation protection We moved our Canadian country allocation to underweight last week in advance of the BoC's expected rate hike, but we had been recommending bearish Canadian trades (curve flatteners and spread wideners versus U.S. Treasuries) in our Tactical Overlay Trade Portfolio for much of the year so far.2 The BoC's 180-degree policy shift over the past month has taken many investors by surprise, but the very strong upturn in the Canadian economy is forcing the BoC into action. With the BoC now projecting the Canadian output gap to be closed this year, expect another one, even two, rate hikes by the end of 2017. This will put additional upward pressure on Canadian bond yields and bear-flatten the Canadian government bond yield curve (Chart 10). Australia: neutral duration, neutral country allocation, neutral curve Australia has been one of the trickier markets on which to have a strong opinion, given the combination of a tight labor market, low inflation, mixed readings on domestic demand and heavy exposure to China's economy. This has led us to be neutral across the board on Australian bonds (Chart 11). We will be covering the outlook for Australia in a Special Report to be published next week, in which we will re-examine our current Australia recommendations. Chart 9Japan Rates Strategy Summary Chart 10Canada Rates Strategy Summary Chart 11Australia Rates Strategy Summary Bottom Line: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. An Update On The State Of U.S. Corporate Bond Market Liquidity In the Fed's latest Monetary Policy Report, presented by Janet Yellen to the U.S. Congress last week, an entire section was devoted to the state of U.S. corporate bond market liquidity.3 The Fed's conclusion was that, according to many commonly used metrics like average bid/ask spreads, corporate debt has not become more difficult to trade in recent years. This goes against the intuition of many bond investors who have perceived a deterioration of liquidity in corporate credit markets since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The Fed likely felt compelled to dedicate three pages of its Monetary Policy Report to a topic as mundane as bond market functionality as a defense of its current regulatory framework for U.S. banks. The Fed has taken a lot of flak from major U.S. financial institutions, conservative free-market politicians and, since last November, the Trump White House over the "heavy-handed" rules shackling the banks. Chart 12U.S. Dealers Don't Matter Regulations such as the Volcker Rule and the Supplementary Leverage Ratio have almost certainly reduced the odds of another financial crisis caused by undercapitalized banks speculating in risky assets. Yet the critics continue to point out that banks which are more worried about meeting regulatory targets are less able to make loans or, in the case of investment banks, make markets in risky assets like corporate debt. This is important for bond investors given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks in corporate debt markets. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 of $280bn to only $20bn this year (Chart 12). Over the same period, the size of the U.S. corporate bond market has more than tripled to $6.5 trillion (using the market capitalization of the Barclays Investment Grade and High-Yield indices as a proxy). On the surface, that indicates that dealers held 10% of "the market" at the peak. Now, dealer inventories barely represent only 0.3% of corporate debt outstanding. While that is low, it is not much lower than the share of corporates held by dealers in the early 2000s. When looking at the full span of the available data, the huge dealer footprint in the U.S. corporate bond market in the years prior to the Financial Crisis was the exception and not the norm. Like most other market participants in those years, the investment banks were seduced by the extended period of low macro and market volatility and ended up taking too much risk on their balance sheets. Now, dealers are much more cautious when trading with clients, acting more as an "agent" that matches buyers and sellers for individual trades and less as a "principal" that holds the bonds themselves. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if dealers in their usual role as market-makers cannot be there to absorb the selling pressure from investors during market sell-offs. Yet corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis. According to data from SIFMA, average daily trading volumes in the U.S. corporate bond market rose from a low in 2008 of $14bn to $30bn in 2016 (Chart 13). Corporate bond issuance has surged as well, but corporate bond turnover - total annualized trading volumes relative to total bonds outstanding - has improved by nearly 35% since the 2008 low. In addition, the reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads (bottom panel). The Fed noted this in its Monetary Policy Report as a sign that market liquidity was not impaired since there were not many "unrealized arbitrage opportunities". It is evident that other market participants have picked up the slack from the dealers in U.S. corporate bond trading. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are the obvious candidate, led by the popular iShares HYG and the SPDR JNK funds that have a combined $30bn in assets under management. According to the Fed's database on the Financial Accounts of the United States (formerly known as the Flow of Funds), the share of corporate bonds held by all retail funds, including ETFs, soared from 6.5% in 2008 to nearly 19% in Q1 of this year (Chart 14). This nearly offset the decline in the share of corporates held directly by households, as individual investors shifted their preferences toward the ease of trading corporate debt ETFs over individual bonds. Chart 13U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved Chart 14Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Importantly, institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds have seen their influence in corporate bond markets increase, as they now hold a combined 35% of corporate debt, up from 26% in 2008 (bottom two panels). These groups will likely control an even greater share of the corporate bond market in the years to come with the growing usage of so-called "all-to-all" electronic trading platforms like MarketAxess or Bloomberg that allow users to trade directly with each other. All-to-all has already established a major market footprint, as activity on MarketAxess now represents 16% of all trading volume in U.S. Investment Grade corporates and 34% for High-Yield, according to The Economist.4 This is a hugely important development. If more professional bond investors can now transact directly with one another, this helps to alleviate any reduction in market liquidity caused by a smaller dealer presence in the market. Even with so much evidence pointing to no serious liquidity problems in U.S. corporate debt, some worrisome issues remain. Chart 15Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows,##BR##Not Vice Versa Average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed.5 This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. This creates an effect where it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing, on average. Corporate bond ETFs are easier to trade than the underlying bonds held in the ETFs themselves. This has worried many investors who fear that a corporate bond market downturn could turn into a much larger rout if rapid ETF redemptions cause "fire sales" of the bonds held in the ETFs to quickly raise cash. Admittedly, the unique ETF structure - where the shares of the ETF are traded and not the underlying bonds, similar to a closed-end mutual fund - has not yet been tested in a true credit bear market. However, there have been several episodes of "risk-off" bond sell-offs over the past few years, most notably for High-Yield ETFs during the 2014/15 oil bear market, which did not result in any disorderly disruption of corporate bond markets. If anything, the historical experience of U.S. corporate bond mutual funds shows that net flows into funds tend to follow, and not lead, the performance of markets (Chart 15). This may exaggerate bond market moves at turning points but, in general, outflows are a symptom, not a cause, of corporate bond downturns. Net-net, we agree with the assessment of the Fed that corporate bond market liquidity shows little sign of impairment and does not represent a threat to market stability. Bottom Line: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/draghi-may-address-future-of-ecb-stimulus-at-jackson-hole-1499944342 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 4 https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721208-greater-automation-promises-more-liquidity-investors-digitisation-shakes-up 5 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/10/has-us-corporate-bond-market-liquidity-deteriorated.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights BCA's Central Bank Monitors support the case for less stimulus. Yellen's "dovish" testimony does not change our Fed call. The BCA Beige Book Monitor and related indicators support our view on the economy and Fed. Maximum central bank policy divergence has not been reached. Too early to predict Trump's replacement for Yellen. Now that economic surprise index has bottomed, risk assets can outperform as the metric mean reverts. Some wage measures are accelerating as the economy approaches full employment. Feature Chart 1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets##BR##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Global bond investors were shocked in June when central bankers announced at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking what appeared to be a global recalibration of monetary policy. Until that time, investors had been lulled into a false sense of security that growth headwinds would prevent the Fed from hiking by more than once a year and keep the other major central banks on hold "indefinitely." The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, as they signaled less need for ultra-stimulative policies because the threat of deflation had diminished. Together with some better-than-expected U.S. economic data, this shift in tone led to a sharp sell-off in global bond markets (Chart 1). The BoC followed up last week by kicking off a prolonged tightening cycle. The central bank now expects the Canadian economy to reach full employment and hit the BoC's inflation targets by mid-2018, which is much earlier than expected. The global bond mini-rout actually began before the ECB Forum, when the ECB President gave a very upbeat description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service highlights that the Euro Area is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. Draghi's comments confirm that the ECB will announce this fall that a further tapering of its asset purchase program will take place in early 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank Monitors (CB), which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart 2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing became popular, but the measures are relevant again. All of our CB Monitors are in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan (although even that one appears on the verge of breaking above the critical zero line). The Monitors have been rising due more to their growth than their inflation components. Bond investors may be startled by the ECB's posture because inflation remains well below target in all the major economies except the U.K. What is most worrying is the recent deceleration in U.S. inflation, where the economy is very close to or at full employment. Almost all of the major central banks point to temporary factors that will soon fade, which would allow inflation to escalate toward the target. Our Aggregate Inflation Indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart 3). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart 2All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart 3BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators These and other indicators support our view that core consumer price inflation will grind higher in the coming months in most of the advanced economies, including the U.S. Admittedly, all models and indicators have been poor predictors of inflation in this recovery. Nonetheless, historical relationships might begin to re-establish now that capacity utilization is rising and labor market slack has moderated significantly. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? June's FOMC minutes indicated that the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation and maintain the current timetable on rate hikes. Yellen's Congressional testimony last week did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." The Fed asserts there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is close to the short-term level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed Chair is at risk of confusing investors by discussing the concept of two neutral rates, although this may have been to head off demands by some Congressional lawmakers that the Fed should follow a mechanical policy rule when setting policy (such as the Taylor Rule). Nonetheless, the important point is that Yellen is not saying that the actual policy rate is close to the peak for the cycle. Yellen's testimony has not altered our Fed call for this year: balance sheet runoff beginning in the fall, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. We expect more rate hikes in 2018/19 than are discounted in the bond market. That said, the soft June CPI data challenges our view that inflation will move higher in the second half. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned decidedly bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Global bond yields have already taken a step up in recent weeks, but they will have to rise further to catch up with the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Duration should be kept short. The Beige Book: Another Inflation Anomaly The Beige Book released on July 12 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin to trim its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December. Our quantitative approach2 to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 4). Chart 4Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook##BR##On Economy And Inflation At 62%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor remained near its cycle highs in July, providing more confirmation that the economy rebounded in Q2 after a desultory Q1. The July 12 Beige Book covered the period from late May through June 30. Based on the Beige Book, the dollar should not be much of an issue in Q2 earnings season. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, which is in sharp contrast to 2015 and early 2016 when mentions of a strong dollar in the Beige Book surged. The Q2 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to express their views of currency impact on their operations. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated in the most recent Beige Book (not shown). The implication is that the business community is mindful of the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that real estate was still stout as Q2 ended. This implies that both residential and commercial real estate, the former a source of strength in Q1, will add to growth again in Q2. Moreover, the latest reading on the BCA Real Estate Monitor further widened the gap between the BCA Beige Book Real Estate Monitor and the relative performance of REITS to the S&P 500. Nonetheless, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service recently downgraded REITS to neutral,3 citing our expectation of higher Treasury yields, modest rent growth, some cracks in CRE credit quality, and tightening standards for bank lending in the CRE marketplace. Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words. Inflation words hit a new peak in July, in sharp contrast with the recent soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will move higher in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Uncertainty in Washington is distressing, but worries over the dollar seem to be fading. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached What about the dollar? Tighter Fed policy is dollar-bullish on its own, but some of the major central banks are also starting to remove the monetary punchbowl as well. Recent dollar action suggests that investors have decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but raising interest rates is a long way off because there is still a lot of economic slack in the Eurozone. In contrast, the Fed is increasingly concerned that allowing the unemployment rate to fall further below its estimate of full-employment risks too large an overshoot of the 2% target. We still believe that market pricing for the fed funds rate is too benign. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate. The major exception is the Canadian dollar, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. Does Gary Cohn Have What It Takes? A key wildcard in the financial outlook is the Fed Chair's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018 and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. The current frontrunner is Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others. Our March 6 Weekly Report4 provides a list of potential Fed appointees and also provides some background on the potential for the Fed to become more politicized under Trump. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have selected the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate. Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978) was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978-1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as the Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014-present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team members. Paul Volcker (1979-1987) was the lone exception to this rule; he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volker, Greenspan and Bernanke were reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. In the summer of 2013, names were already being floated by the Obama White House (and mainly rejected) by markets, before he finally settled on Yellen. The official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October of 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. Our U.S. Bond Strategy service argued in a recent report5 that rate hike expectations may already be ramping up, while the data on the economy and inflation begin to beat expectations again. Bottom Line: It is too early for the markets to be concerned about the next Fed Chair and their policies. The names mentioned in the summer may not be the ones offered the job in the fall. Surprise Index Finally Bottomed Out The June employment report marked a turning point for the Citigroup surprise index, following an extended period of disappointment that depressed the dollar and bond yields. The June reports on CPI and retail sales were disappointing, but June industrial production exceeded expectations. What does this mean for relative asset returns? After 86 days, expectations moved low enough to allow economic reality to begin to run ahead. It took as few as 8 business days (in 2009) and as many as 164 (2015) for the surprise index to return to the zero line, an average of 52 days (Chart 5). Chart 5Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Mean-reversions in the surprise index following troughs have generally been good for risk assets in this recovery (Table 2). We have identified 11 periods since late 2009 when the surprise index bottomed out and then moved up toward zero. In 8 of those episodes, the total return on stocks was higher than 10-year Treasuries. Equities beat Treasuries by an average of 286 bps across all 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 400 basis points. Table 2U.S. Financial Market Performance As Economic Surprise Index Rises The total return on investment-grade corporate debt outperformed Treasuries in 6 of 11 episodes. In those six instances, investment grade credit outperformed on average by 132 bps. Nonetheless over all 11 episodes, the excess return was 0%. In contrast, high-yield bonds beat Treasuries in 7 of the 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 188 basis points. Similarly, small caps beat large caps 72% of the time as the economic surprise index moved back toward the zero line. The median outperformance of small over large in all 11 periods was 124 basis points. The performance of commodities was mixed as economic surprises climbed. Gold rose in 6 of the 11 times, but fell in 5. Oil prices posted increases in only 5 of the 11, but the median return for oil after economic surprise bottomed was -2.7%. Bottom Line: Economic expectations that ramped up post-election have now declined and allowed the economic surprise index to trough. The implication for investors is that risk assets tend to outperform as the economic surprise index moves back to zero. This supports our tactical views of stocks over bonds, small over large caps, and credit over Treasury. What's Up With Wages? The June jobs report released in early July6 only added to the market's fears that the Phillips Curve is dead because wage growth softened even as the labor market tightened. Unfortunately, no Fed officials including Yellen have addressed the topic in depth recently. The market does not believe the Fed when it says that the tighter labor market is pushing up wages. We see it another way. Chart 6 shows that wage inflation has accelerated since mid-to-late 2012, but some measures of wages have made more progress than others. Chart 7 and Chart 8 reinforce that, setting aside the rollover in average hourly earnings (AHE), wage inflation is accelerating, albeit modestly. Chart 6Plenty Of Signs That##BR##Wages Are Accelerating Chart 7Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Rollover Chart 8Acceleration In Hours Worked Should##BR##Lead To Faster Wage Growth The Employment Cost Index (ECI) excluding bonuses (Chart 6, panel 1) is our favorite measure of labor compensation. It has accelerated steadily since 2010. It adjusts for compositional changes in the labor market (unlike the average hourly earnings measure) and is the broadest and most comprehensive wage metric. Its drawbacks are that it is released with a long lag. For example, the Q2 ECI data will not be released until the end of July. The AHE data is already available for June and Q2. On the other hand, unit labor costs (ULC) (panel 2) have stagnated for the past five years. Data starts in 1947, so it has the most history of any of the wage measures. However, it is even more delayed than the ECI: it is released five weeks after the end of the quarter. Moreover, these data are subject to revisions and tend to be more volatile than other wages measures, which makes it difficult to identify a change in trend. Productivity, which is used to construct ULC, is also very difficult to estimate. A recent BIS report7 notes that there is evidence that the relationship between ULC and labor market slack has diminished over time, but that ULC is a better measure of inflationary pressures than AHE. Median usual weekly earnings (panel 3) have also accelerated. This is not a pure wage measure; it combines hourly pay and hours worked and, therefore, is a good proxy for incomes. Income growth has picked up the pace, providing a solid underpinning for consumer spending. Panel 4 shows compensation per hour worked. It, too, has stalled and is subject to the same strengths and weakness as ULC because it is part of the quarterly Productivity and Costs report. This metric has run near 2% with no trend. Finally, average hourly earnings (panel 5) have sped up since 2012, but rolled over in late 2016. This wage gauge gets most of the market's attention although it is only one of many measures that the Fed watches. AHE is a timely data set, released alongside monthly payroll numbers. It includes average earnings of private non-farm production and non-supervisory positions. The major disadvantage of this measure is that hourly wage earners represent only about 58% of workers and do not account for trends in salaried jobs. Earnings do not include bonus pay or employee benefits. The data are available beginning only in 2006. In Chart 7, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker (not shown) is in a distinct uptrend. The Tracker has the advantage that it is not biased by compositional shifts. Chart 8 shows our update to a study by the Kansas City Fed8 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector of the economy) have accounted for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the goods-producing sector. We concur with the author that labor demand was strong in the past few years in areas that have not experienced much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience will be required. Bottom Line: The various measures of wage inflation provide a mixed picture. Taken as a group, however, we believe that wage growth has indeed accelerated as the labor market has tightened. The acceleration has admittedly been modest, but it is only recently that unemployment reached a full employment level. The real test for the Phillips curve will be in the coming quarters as the economy moves further into "excess labor demand" territory. 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 1 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "SPX 3000?, dated July 10, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", dated March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sizing up the Second Half", dated July 10, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Monetary policy: inching towards normalization", Bank for International Settlements (BIS), 25 June 2017. 8 Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings", Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.

Dear Client, I am visiting clients this week, and as such there will be no Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan argues that while the recent acceleration of the Canadian economy is genuine, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine. In isolation, this supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. However, over the long run, the historical experience suggests that the substantial leverage of Canadian households will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming year, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Feature Several developments over the past few months have altered the outlook for the Canadian economy. However, these events have not had a consistent impact on the narrative for Canadian assets. Whereas a sharp rebound in real GDP growth and a hawkish pivot from the Bank of Canada have been signs of a strengthening economy, the crisis surrounding Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) was an ominous sign for many investors concerned about the deeply imbalanced Canadian housing market.1 In this report we argue that the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy is legitimate, and that the Bank of Canada is likely to move forward with gradual policy tightening following Wednesday's move. However, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run, rather than a risk. We highlight how, in many ways, the imbalances in the Canadian housing market are even worse than the market narrative would suggest. We also provide a checklist of factors to monitor in order to judge when Canada's day of reckoning will arrive. For now, it does not appear to be imminent. From an investment standpoint, our conclusions imply that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Over the coming 6-12 months, a cyclical improvement in the economy means that Canadian risky asset prices and government bond yields are likely to rise, and we believe that this stage is worth playing. But over the secular horizon, the reverse is likely to unfold, meaning that a rally in Canadian assets over the coming year will create excellent "selling conditions" for investors looking to position for a bearish structural view. Economic Momentum Is Spurring Tighter Monetary Policy... The Bank of Canada is now back on a path towards tighter monetary policy, and a close examination of the Canadian economy, as well as our outlook for global oil inventories, supports the BoC's view: Real consumer spending picked up significantly in Q1, rising from 2.7% to 3.1% on a year-over-year basis. Chart 1 highlights that the rise in real spending has been supported by a rebound in employment growth and consumer confidence (the latter is at a 9-year high). On the employment side, Chart 1 also shows that the acceleration in job growth is not limited to provinces that are strongly associated with oil sands production. In fact, the chart shows that employment in Canada excluding Alberta and Saskatchewan has been in an uptrend since mid-2014, when fiscal and monetary policy began to respond to the shock from a collapse in the price of oil. All Canadian employment cylinders are now firing, given the job recovery in oil sands provinces. Real Canadian gross fixed capital formation turned positive in Q1 after a significant decline into negative territory, and a simple model based on business confidence, oil prices, and the Canadian dollar (stripped of its correlation with oil) suggests that it will continue to accelerate modestly over the coming year (Chart 2). Chart 1Genuine Signs Of A Stronger Economy Chart 2Further Gains In Investment Likely Chart 3 shows a model for oil prices, based on global industrial production, oil production, OECD oil inventories, and oil consumption in the major countries and China. If OPEC is successful in reducing inventories to their 5-year moving average, as BCA's commodity strategists expect, the model implies that oil prices will rise materially. This is likely to provide a tailwind for the Canadian economy, at least in nominal terms. While the pace of tightening is likely to be gradual because of the weakness in Canadian core inflation, Chart 4 suggests that the decline in inflation over the past few months may simply represent the correction towards more fundamentally-justified levels. The chart shows a model of core inflation based on lagged real core consumer spending and the Canadian dollar (as a proxy for imported inflation/deflation), and highlights that actual inflation has overshot the model value over the past three years. But the chart also shows that the fundamentally-justified level of core inflation remains in an uptrend, suggesting that recent weakness is likely temporary and is thus not an impediment to higher policy rates over the coming year. Chart 3Falling Inventories Will Be Bullish For Oil Chart 4The Dip In Core Inflation Is Temporary Bottom Line: The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine and, in isolation, supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. ...But It Will All Likely End In Tears Chart 5Higher Household Leverage Than In The U.S. Pre-Crisis While we agree that the Bank of Canada is on a path to gradually raise interest rates over the coming year and that the economy is currently in good shape, the odds are good that tighter policy (and/or other factors) will eventually inflict considerable damage to the Canadian economy via the housing market and its impact on highly leveraged consumers. In this regard, the pickup in Canadian economic growth likely represents a happy moment in an otherwise sad story. Chart 5 compares Canada's mortgage debt-to-disposable income, total household debt-to-GDP, and the total household debt service ratio to that of the U.S. The chart neatly illustrates the fundamental basis for a bearish secular outlook for the Canadian economy, which is that household debt levels have risen enormously since 2000, to a level that is worse today than in the U.S. in 2007. "So what?" ask some investors. Household debt levels vary significantly across countries, meaning that an elevated level of household debt-to-income does not necessarily spell economic doom. Chart 6 counters this point by showing the relationship between the historical change in household debt-to-GDP (y-axis) versus the starting point for the ratio (x-axis) during episodes of significant household leveraging. The change in debt-to-GDP is shown as a 10-year average of the year-over-year change in the ratio, in order to compare Canada's recent debt binge with other long-term booms in credit. In terms of very significant increases in household credit-to-GDP from an already above-average level, Chart 6 shows that Canada's experience (an average yearly increase of 3.3%) has been among the most severe cases. The chart also shows that while there are a few exceptions, other observations in the neighborhood of Canada's have had a strong tendency to be associated with harsh economic consequences once the credit binge has come to an end. In particular, while the chart shows that the countries at the center of the euro area sovereign debt crisis saw a more rapid rise in household debt-to-GDP than observed in Canada, this occurred from a lower base. When measuring the total change in household debt-to-GDP, Canada has experienced almost the same magnitude rise from 2000 to today as what occurred in Spain and Portugal during the last economic cycle. In terms of a comparison with the U.S., Chart 7 presents a long-term perspective on the inverse relationship between household credit growth and real per capita consumption in the U.S. The chart highlights that 10-year upcycles in household debt-to-GDP correlate well, with a lag, to 10-year downcycles in real per capita spending. Periods where the relationship is less tight have tended to be associated with less severe increases in household debt-to-GDP, suggesting that investors can be more confident that debt growth will eventually negatively impact consumer spending the stronger the credit binge has been. Chart 6The Historical Experience Of Household Leveraging Does Not Paint A Pretty Picture For Canada Chart 7Upcycles In Household Leveraging Correspond To Downcycles In Real Spending As a final point, Chart 7 underscores a sobering fact: The U.S. has only seen two instances of a 3% or greater average annual rise in household debt-to-GDP over the course of a decade: the first was in the 1920s, and the second was from 1998 to 2007. Clearly, in both cases the rise in debt ended very poorly for the U.S. economy. This, along with the prevalence of serious debt crises following credit binges similar in magnitude to Canada's experience, makes it clear that a credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run, rather than a risk. Bottom Line: The available historical evidence suggests that the substantial leveraging of Canadian households that has already occurred will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Debunking Some Housing Market Myths: It's Worse Than You Think Chart 816 Years Of Too-Easy Money The risk that the Bank of Canada will eventually "over-tighten" is magnified by the fact that there is still an ongoing debate within Canada about whether any housing market imbalances even exist. Many market participants still employ several arguments about the Canadian housing market that, at first blush, appear to mitigate the risk of serious long-term consequences of Canada's debt boom. But these arguments are flawed, and an in-depth review of these fallacies highlights the economic risk of higher interest rates. Myth #1 - Sustainable Demand And Affordability The first myth about Canada's housing market is that the rise in house prices and household debt is sustainable because of how long the boom has lasted without consequence. However, besides the ominous historical experience highlighted in Charts 6 and 7 above, Chart 8 makes it clear that the substantial build-up in Canadian household debt since 2000 has occurred primarily due to too-easy monetary policy, rather than legitimate housing market fundamentals. The chart presents Canadian household debt-to-GDP versus the Bank of Canada's target for the overnight rate. The dotted line in panel 2 is a Canadian version of the well-known Taylor rule of monetary policy, with panel 3 showing the difference between the actual policy rate and that prescribed by the rule. The chart shows that the rise in household debt-to-GDP began precisely when the policy rate fell below the Taylor rule, and that this gap has persisted for the past 16 years. We acknowledge that the Bank of Canada felt it was necessary to keep interest rates relatively low during the last economic cycle because of the persistent strength in the Canadian dollar (which acts to restrain exports). But whatever drag on growth that occurred from a strong currency was not large enough to prevent low interest rates from sparking an enormous rise in household leverage. Myth #2 - No Foreign Money Effect The second myth about the Canadian housing market is that there is no substantial effect on house prices from foreign money and that, by extension, foreign transaction taxes should be discouraged. To us, the issue is not the specific residency status of a particular buyer, but rather whether the housing market is being supported by an inflow of foreign capital. While data limitations make it difficult to prove with certainty that Canada has been struck with a tidal wave of capital from China (with Hong Kong acting as the conduit), Charts 9 and 10 show that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The story that emerges from the charts is that the peak in Chinese real GDP growth in 2010 marked the beginning of significant capital outflow from the country, which appears to have moved through Hong Kong, and was perhaps accelerated by Xi Jinping's crackdown on cronyism that began in 2013. Panel 2 of Chart 9 shows that the average absolute value of Hong Kong's "net errors and omissions" line from the balance of payments spiked after mid-2010,2 as did Canada's "other investment liabilities" with a lag. Chart 10 shows that this period also saw a sharp rise in visitor arrivals to Canada from China and Hong Kong, a rise in the share of Canadian bank loans to nonresidents, and a meteoric rise in house prices in Vancouver and Toronto. Chart 11 presents data from Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank that tracks illicit financial flows globally. While the data is only available with a lag, the chart shows that GFI's estimate of illicit financial outflows from China has risen significantly following the global financial crisis, which is consistent with the narrative presented in Charts 9 and 10. Chart 9Very Strong Circumstantial Evidence... Chart 10...Of Foreign Capital Inflows Chart 11Clear Evidence Of Chinese Capital Flight Myth #3 - Tight Supply The third myth concerning Canadian housing is the argument that housing supply is tight, which justifies the exponential move in house prices. First, it should be noted that while residential investment as a share of GDP was indeed low in the late-1990s, it rose back to its long-term average within the first three years of the housing boom, and has recently risen to a 27-year high (Chart 12). A similar trend can be observed in housing starts and the number of unsold housing inventories. As such, it seems difficult to make the case that the extraordinary rise in house prices and household debt that we have observed over the past 16 years is ultimately due to scarce housing supply. Chart 13 makes this point more saliently, by presenting a scatterplot of the median house price-to-income ratio versus the population density of several major global markets. Ultimately, in any true market economy, genuine housing supply constraints must be related to high density or else there would be ample room to build additional housing units. Two points are noteworthy: Chart 12There Is No Supply Problem Chart 13'There's Nowhere To Build!': Yeah, Right! The median house price-to-income ratio for Toronto and Vancouver deviate enormously from the level that would be implied by their density given the relationship across global housing markets. Based purely on this analysis of relative density, Toronto and Vancouver house prices are 80% and 140% overvalued, respectively. Around the globe, the housing markets that appear to be the most overvalued relative to population density appear to be the geographically closest to China (Vancouver, Australia, Hong Kong, and the West Coast of the U.S.), which echoes our conclusions about foreign capital inflow above. Myth #4 - A Healthier Canadian Household Debt Distribution The fourth myth concerning Canadian housing is the idea that the household debt binge that we have observed has been a "healthier" rise than what occurred in the U.S. during the last economic cycle. The argument is that the rise in debt in the U.S. from 2001 - 2007 predominantly occurred among "subprime" borrowers, and that this is not occurring in Canada. Comparing Canada to the U.S. last cycle is difficult due to the lack of data on the distribution of Canadian household debt-to-income ratios by income percentile. However, some inferences can be drawn from the OECD's wealth distribution database, and they suggest that Canadian household debt is, in fact, quite concentrated. Chart 14 presents the relationship between the number of households with debt and the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted households, from 2010 to 2012 (depending on the observation). The chart shows that while only about half of Canadian households are indebted (in line with the average of the countries shown and below that of the U.S.), among those with debt the median debt-to-income ratio is substantially higher than most other countries. This is also reflected in Chart 15, which shows that Canada has a high rank of significantly indebted households as a share of all indebted households,3 more so that the U.S. Investors should note that Canada's rank today is likely to be higher than that shown in Chart 15, given that several other highly indebted countries (such as the Netherlands and Portugal) have actually experienced household deleveraging since 2010. Chart 14High Concentration... Chart 15...Of Household Indebtedness Myth #5 - The "CMHC Backstop" The fifth and final myth concerning Canadian housing is the fact that the economy is not significantly exposed to a housing market downturn because of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mortgage insurance coverage protects Canadian banks. It is true that the CMHC can act as a backstop for the economy by helping to mitigate mortgage default losses. But Chart 16 highlights that there have been some substantial changes over the past few years in the CMHC's footprint in the mortgage market that casts significant doubt on whether it would be able to materially blunt the losses that are likely to occur from systemic mortgage defaults. First, the chart shows that while half of mortgages in Canada had CMHC insurance coverage in 2010, this has fallen by 14 percentage points in just six years (to 36%). This means that almost 2/3rds of Canadian mortgages are not CMHC-insured. Second, while the CMHC has been aggressive in building equity over the past several years (perhaps in anticipation of a significant housing bust!), this equity buffer is still small relative to its total loans (9%) and is fractional as a share of total Canadian residential mortgage credit (1.5%). As such, while we agree that the CMHC is an effective backstop against idiosyncratic risk in the mortgage market, it is simply too small to act as a credible buffer against large-scale losses. Bottom Line: Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. When Will The Party Come To An End? From our perspective, the most likely catalysts for a credit-driven downturn in spending are a reversal of the factors that drove the rise in household debt in the first place. Chart 17 presents a three-phase view of the rise in household debt-to-income since 2000, and summarizes the major drivers of rising leverage in each phase given our analysis above: persistently easy monetary policy (phase I), fiscal and monetary easing (phase II), and foreign capital inflow (phase III). Given this, higher interest rates, fiscal drag, and/or a shock to foreign capital would appear to be the most likely triggers for a credit-driven downturn: Chart 16A Substantially Lower CMHC Footprint Chart 17The Major Drivers Of Rising Household Leverage Higher Interest Rates: Tighter monetary policy is an obvious (and most likely) trigger for a major reversal in the Canadian housing market. It is not yet clear how aggressively the Bank of Canada will raise interest rates over the coming 6-12 months, but Chart 18 highlights that the household debt service ratio will quickly rise to a new high even if the Bank of Canada hikes rates by 150 bps over a two-year period, owing to the relatively short maturity of Canadian mortgage contract terms. Still, the chart shows that this does not occur until mid-2019 at the earliest. Fiscal Drag: IMF forecasts for Canada's cyclically-adjusted primary balance suggest that government spending and investment will remain a positive contributor to growth into next year (Chart 19). But beginning in 2019, fiscal policy is forecast to become a persistent drag on growth, and it is even possible that the sharp deceleration in fiscal thrust set to occur next year could act as the proximate cause of serious problems in the Canadian housing market. Chart 18Not An Imminent Threat, But Watch Out Chart 19Fiscal Drag Set To Begin In 2019 Chart 20Macroprudential Measures Didn't Kill The Vancouver Housing Market A Domestically-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: Some investors have pointed with concern to dramatic declines in the sales-to-listings ratios in Vancouver and Toronto following foreign taxation announcements in these markets. We agree that the impact of new or existing macroprudential measures may eventually cause a severe fallout in the housing market, but for now the experience of Vancouver suggests that such an event is not imminent. Chart 20 presents the 3- and 12-month rate of change in Vancouver house prices, with the vertical line denoting the announcement of the foreign transaction tax. While it is clear that the tax sharply slowed the rate of appreciation in Vancouver house prices, it did not cause an outright decline (the 3-month rate of change only briefly turned negative before returning to positive territory). Cyclically, we would become more concerned were we to observe a combination of additional restrictions on foreign capital inflow, higher minimum down payment thresholds for houses priced at or below median levels, and a significantly lower allowable gross/total debt service ratio. An Externally-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: We noted earlier in the report that there is strong circumstantial evidence showing that Canada's property market is benefiting from large capital inflows from China, with Hong Kong acting as the conduit. Given this, the Canadian housing market could be subject to a shock from exogenous changes in the flow of this capital, perhaps triggered by cyclical changes in China's economy or, more likely, actions by Chinese policymakers to materially slow the pace of capital flight. While it is very difficult on a high frequency basis to track whether the impact of foreign capital on Canada's housing market is growing or weakening, the indicators shown in Charts 9 and 10 on page 9 form the basis of our monitoring effort. The list above has focused on potential triggers that are specific to the factors that led to the build-up in Canadian household debt. Clearly there are additional macro factors that could trigger the onset of a major debt payback period in Canada, and chief among these would be the next U.S. or global recession. For example, we recently noted how continued tightening from the Fed could set the stage for a U.S. recession in 2019, which could easily trigger either a prolonged period of stagnant Canadian growth or an active deleveraging event.4 Bottom Line: There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Investment Implications Canadian household leverage has risen enormously over the past 16 years, and a detailed analysis of Canada's housing market shows that an eventual credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run (rather than a risk). However, among the most probable triggers for a serious housing market shock, only higher interest rates are set to occur over the coming year. Given that monetary tightening will be gradual in its pace, it does not seem probable that a major downturn in spending is imminent. From an investment standpoint, these conclusions imply the following stance towards Canadian dollar assets over the coming 6-12 months: Overweight the Canadian dollar: The cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy, along with our bullish view on oil prices, suggests that the Canadian dollar is set to appreciate over the coming year. We acknowledge that our constructive view on oil prices is contrarian and that, for now, we are ahead of the market. Continued weakness in oil prices remains the chief risk to a bullish stance on the CAD. But our detailed analysis of the global oil market strongly implies that the current level of oil inventories is too high and is set to draw materially over the coming months, which will be undoubtedly positive for oil prices barring the development of a major global demand shock. Maintain Canadian equities on upgrade watch: Canadian equities have materially underperformed their global peers over the past six years, due to fairly significant de-rating from overvalued levels as well as a downtrend in relative 12-month forward earnings (mostly vs the U.S.; Chart 21). Relative performance in common-currency terms has also been hurt by a declining Canadian dollar. Looking out over the next year, there are at least some tentative signs to be optimistic about Canadian stocks. First, Chart 22 highlights that Canadian stocks are now moderately cheap relative to their global peers based on a composite valuation indicator. Second, our expectation of an uptrend in oil prices would likely bolster relative forward earnings, and could act as a re-rating catalyst for the broad market. Chart 21Multiples And Earnings Have Worked Against Canadian Stocks Chart 22No Longer Expensive Underweight Canadian bonds within a hedged global fixed-income portfolio: Canadian government bonds have recently underperformed their global peers, and this trend is likely to continue in response to tighter monetary policy. Over the longer term, the likelihood of a major credit-driven downturn in spending means that the secular investment implications for Canada are precisely the opposite of that described above. This means that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach to investing in Canadian assets. The fact that the Canadian economy is currently accelerating and a significant reversal in the Canadian housing market does not seem to be imminent means that there is an opportunity for Canadian assets to potentially outperform (or underperform in the case of government bonds) over the coming 6-12 months. Such a period of cyclical improvement would likely (temporarily) dampen investor concerns about a major housing market correction, creating much better "selling conditions" for Canadian risky assets than from current levels. We acknowledge that the "two-stage" nature of this strategy is nuanced, and we have provided a checklist of potential triggers for the housing market in this report so that investors can gauge the likelihood that a material payback period is about to begin. We will continue to monitor both the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy and the magnitude of imbalances in the household sector, and will provide investors with regular updates as they develop. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming 6-12 months, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Appendix A A Quick Recap Of Home Capital: Not A Systemic Issue In April, the share price of Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) collapsed by 75% in response to a major liquidity crisis for the firm. The crisis ultimately stemmed from a set of mortgage loans with falsified income documentation, which to many outside observers was strongly reminiscent of the aberrant practices of U.S. subprime lending institutions during the last cycle that eventually spawned the global financial crisis. However, as highlighted below, Home Capital Group's problems were largely idiosyncratic (i.e., not systemic) in nature: Home Capital's business model involves lending to Canadians who lack a stable credit history, but who are generally otherwise creditworthy (commonly referred to as "near-prime" borrowers). Since these borrowers subsequently build a credit history by staying current on their mortgage loans with Home Capital, they often switch to a big-five bank after the term of the loan is complete. As such, Home Capital faces substantial client retention challenges, which is an idiosyncratic income statement problem rather than a balance sheet problem with systemic implications. To combat the tendency of its loan book to shrink, in 2014 Home Capital increased the size of its sales force by partnering with a set of established mortgage brokers. Some of the loans that had been originated by these brokers had falsified income documentation, which led to an internal investigation. Following the investigation, the company failed to disclose the results to investors during a period where the company's operating performance was impacted by the fraud. This eventually led to enforcement action from the Ontario Securities Commission. The disclosure of enforcement, along with several other events (such as the termination of its CEO in late-March) severely eroded investor confidence in the firm and essentially caused a bank run. From a macro perspective, there are two important takeaways from this series of events. First, it is important to note that Home Capital experienced a liquidity rather than a solvency crisis. While the former can, of course, lead to the latter, the run on Home Capital did not occur because of deteriorating loan performance, unlike what occurred in the U.S. with the subprime market. Indeed, Home Capital's first quarter results show that net impaired loans as a percent of gross loans have continued to trend lower over the past several quarters (Chart A1). Second, the fact that Home Capital's mortgage book tends to shrink underscores the underlying creditworthiness of at least some of its borrowers, because these households would probably not be able to shift their mortgages to the big-five banks if loan qualification was an issue. As a final point, Chart A2 presents some perspective about the apparent prevalence of mortgage fraud in Canada by showing the number of U.S. mortgage loan fraud suspicious activity reports (SARs) in the lead-up to the subprime financial crisis. The chart not only shows the sharp rise in the number of SARs from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008, but it also shows that the volume of reports numbered in the tens of thousands. By contrast, Canadian news stories reporting on a rise in the number of mortgage fraud complaints in Canada quote a trivially small number of cases. For example, a recent article from the Vancouver Sun stated that British Colombia's Financial Institutions Commission statistics "show complaints roughly doubled from 109 in 2013 to about 200 in 2016, and about a third of complaints allege loan application fraud."5 Chart A1No Deterioration In Loan Performance Chart A2No Evidence That This Is Happening In Canada While it is technically correct to state that this is a doubling in the rate of fraud cases, it is from what appears to be an extremely small base. Adjusting by a factor of 10 to account for the difference in population, Canada would need to see 3,000-to-6,000 cases of mortgage fraud per year in order to be comparable to what occurred in the U.S. in the latter half of the housing market bubble. There is simply no evidence that mortgage fraud on this scale of magnitude is occurring. 1 See Appendix A on page 19 for a review of the Home Capital debacle and why concerns of systemic mortgage fraud are quite likely overblown. 2 If Hong Kong has been a conduit for capital flight from China, the flow of capital would only temporarily show up in Hong Kong's balance of payments. For example, one quarter of significant capital inflow might be followed by a quarter of significant capital outflow as the money enters from China and exits towards the rest of the world. As such, we use the absolute value of Hong Kong's net errors and omissions line to see whether the magnitude of the flow has increased. 3 Defined as having a debt-to-income ratio in excess of 3. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Sam Cooper, "Regulator Tracks The Rise In Mortgage Fraud Complaints In B.C. As House Prices Jump," Vancouver Sun, June 19, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades