Global

Highlights Global Yields: Flattening government yield curves in the developed world have raised concerns about a potential future growth slowdown. Yet real policy rates will need to move into positive territory before monetary policy becomes truly restrictive and curves invert. This means global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. UST-Bund Spread: The U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). UST Technicals: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains bearish. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Feature In most years, investment professionals can look forward to taking some well-deserved time off in July to hit the beach and read a good book. This year, those same investors are forced to keep an eye on their Bloombergs while responding to the public musings of Donald Trump. The president made comments late last week that threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve, while also accusing China and Europe of currency manipulation. While those headlines can briefly move markets on a sunny summer day, they represent more Trump-ian bluster than any potential change in the conduct of U.S. monetary or currency policy. Chart of the WeekCan Policy Be Truly "Tight"##BR##With Negative Real Rates? Can Policy Be Truly 'Tight' With Negative Real Rates? Can Policy Be Truly 'Tight' With Negative Real Rates? The underlying dynamic remains one of mixed global growth (strong in the U.S., slowing almost everywhere else) but with low unemployment and rising inflation in most major economies. That means that independent, inflation-fighting central bankers must focus on their inflation mandates. In the U.S., that means more Fed rate hikes and a firm U.S. dollar, regardless of the desires of President Trump - the author of the large fiscal stimulus, at full employment, which is forcing the Fed to continue hiking rates. In other countries, however, the economic backdrop is leading to varying degrees of central banker hawkishness. That ranges from actual rate hikes (Canada) to tapering of bond buying (Europe, Japan) to merely talking up the potential for rate increases (U.K., Sweden, Australia). The aggregate monetary policy stance of the major developed market central banks is now tilted more hawkishly. So it is no surprise that global government bond yield curves have been flattening and returns on risk assets have been underwhelming (Chart of the Week). Yet the reality is that all major global curves still have a positive slope, even in the U.S. and Canada where central banks have been most actively tightening, while real policy interest rates remain below zero. It would be highly unusual for yield curves to invert before real rates turned positive, especially if central bankers must move to an outright restrictive stance given tight labor markets and rising realized inflation. This implies that there is more scope for global bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months. We continue to recommend that investors maintain a defensive overall duration stance ... and to focus more on that good book on the beach and less on Trump's Twitter feed. Where To Next For The Treasury-Bund Spread? Chart 2A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend,##BR##Not A Reversal A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend, Not A Reversal A Pause In The Rising Yield Trend, Not A Reversal The rise in bond yields in both the U.S. and euro area seen in the first quarter of 2018 has been partly reversed since then. One of the culprits has been a stalling of the rally in oil markets, which has prompted a pause in the rise of inflation expectations on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 2). Yet another factor has been the larger decline in real bond yields, which have fallen around 20bps in the both the U.S. and euro area since the peak in mid-May (bottom two panels). A potential driver of those lower real yields is the growing concern over the potential hit to global growth from rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China (and Europe, Canada, Mexico, etc). This comes at a time when China's economic growth was already slowing and acting as a drag on global trade activity and commodity prices. There has been significant weakness in China's currency and equity market of late, which raises the specter of another broader global selloff as occurred during the Chinese turbulence of 2015/16. Yet the declines in industrial metals prices and emerging market corporate debt have been far more modest so far in 2018 (Chart 3). A big reason for that has been the more subdued performance of the U.S. dollar this year, unlike the massive surge in 2015/16 that crushed risk assets worldwide (Chart 4). A more likely driver of the recent drop in real yields in the U.S. and core Europe was the slump in euro area economic data earlier in 2018. That move not only drove yields lower, but also pushed out the market-implied timing of the first ECB rate hike (Chart 5) and drove the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to new wides. In our last Weekly Report, we updated our list of indicators in the U.S. and euro area that we have been monitoring to assess if our below-benchmark duration stance was still appropriate.1 The conclusion was that the underlying trends in growth and inflation on both sides of the Atlantic still supported higher bond yields on a cyclical basis, although the pressures were greater in the U.S. Yet at the same time, the gap between U.S. and euro area government bond yields has remained historically wide, with the 10-year Treasury-German Bund spread now sitting at 255bps - the highest level since the late 1980s. Chart 3Slowing Growth##BR##In China... Slowing Growth In China... Slowing Growth In China... Chart 4...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten##BR##Global Financial Stability ...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten Global Financial Stability ...But Not Yet Enough To Threaten Global Financial Stability Monetary policy differences have historically been the biggest driver of that spread. Today, the Fed is well into an interest rate hiking cycle that began nearly three years ago, and is now in the process of unwinding its balance sheet. Meanwhile, the ECB has been keeping policy rates at or below 0% while engaging in large-scale bond buying (Chart 6). Chart 5A Turn In European Yields##BR##On The Horizon? A Turn In European Yields On The Horizon? A Turn In European Yields On The Horizon? Chart 6Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects##BR##Monetary Policy Divergences Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects Monetary Policy Divergences Wide UST-Bund Spread Reflects Monetary Policy Divergences When looking at more typical fundamental drivers of the Treasury-Bund spread, many of the cross-regional differences are already "in the price". The spread appears to have overshot relative to the three main factors that go into our Treasury-Bund spread valuation model (Chart 7): The gap between Fed and ECB policy rate The ratio of the U.S. unemployment rate to the euro area equivalent The gap between headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area The Fed's rate hikes have now widened the policy rate differential versus the ECB equivalent (the short-term repo rate) to 200bps. At the same time, the rapidly improving situation in the euro area labor market now means that the unemployment ratio has been constant over the past couple of years, while euro area inflation has also caught up a bit toward U.S. levels in recent months. Adding it all up together in our Treasury-Bund valuation model - which also includes the sizes of the Fed and ECB balance sheets to quantify the impact on yields of bond-buying programs - and the conclusion is that the current spread level of 255bps is 50bps above "fair value" (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals UST-Bund Spread Overshooting Fundamentals Chart 8UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model UST-Bund Spread Looks Wide On Our Model Importantly, fair value is still rising, primarily because of the widening policy rate differential. We have consistently argued that the true cyclical peak in the Treasury-Bund spread will occur when the Fed is done with its rate hike cycle. Yet there are opportunities to play that spread more tactically, based on shorter-term indicators. For example, the gap between the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area has been a correlated to the momentum of the Treasury-Bund spread, measured as the 13-week change of the level of the spread (Chart 9). Data surprises are now bottoming out in the euro area while they continue to drift lower in the U.S. As a result, the Treasury-Bund spread momentum has begun to fade, right in line with the narrowing of the data surprise differential. Also from a more technical perspective, the deviation of the Treasury-Bund spread from its 200-day moving average is at one of the more stretched levels of the past decade. Combined with the extended spread momentum, this suggests that the Treasury-Bund spread should expect to see a period of consolidation in the next few months (Chart 10). Chart 9Relative Data Surprises No Longer##BR##Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises No Longer Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises No Longer Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 10UST-Bund Spread Momentum##BR##Got To Stretched Extremes UST-Bund Spread Momentum Got To Stretched Extremes UST-Bund Spread Momentum Got To Stretched Extremes We have been recommending both a structural short U.S./long core Europe position in our model bond portfolio for over a year now. We also entered into a trade that directly played for a wider 10-year Treasury-Bund spread in our Tactical Trade portfolio. We initiated that recommendation on August 8th, 2017 when the spread was at 162bps. With the spread now at 255bps, we are now closing out that recommendation this week, taking a profit of 7% (inclusive of the gains from hedging the Bund exposure into U.S. dollars).2 At the same time, we feel that it is too early to position for a narrowing of the Treasury-Bund spread. The large U.S. fiscal stimulus will continue to put upward pressure on U.S. bond yields over the next year, both through higher U.S. inflation and the associated need for tighter Fed policy. Already, the Treasury-Bund spread reflects both the relatively larger dearth of spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 11) and the expected widening of the U.S. federal budget deficit compared to reduced deficits in the euro area (Chart 12). Much like the rise in the fair value of the Treasury-Bund spread, this suggests that there is limited downside for the spread on a more medium-term basis. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be##BR##Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... UST-Bund Spread Narrowing Will Be Limited By Faster U.S. Growth... Chart 12...The Result Of Looser##BR##U.S. Fiscal Policy ...The Result Of Looser U.S. Fiscal Policy ...The Result Of Looser U.S. Fiscal Policy We are taking profits on our tactical spread based on our read of all of our relevant indicators. There is a good chance, however, that we could consider re-entering a spread widening trade on any meaningful narrowing of the spread or adjustment in our indicators. Bottom Line: The fundamental drivers of the 10-year U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread continue to point to the spread staying wide over the next 6-12 months. Yet the spread has overshot our fair value estimates, and relative positive data surprises are turning more in favor of Europe. We are taking profits on our tactical UST-Bund spread widening trade, after a gain of 7% (hedged into U.S. dollars). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasury Market Technicals One of the overriding aspects of the U.S. Treasury market over the past few months has been the stretched technical backdrop. The combination of oversold price momentum, bearish sentiment and aggressive short positioning have helped keep yields in check, even as U.S. growth and inflation accelerate and the Fed continues to signal more future rate hikes. Back in March, we presented a study of previous episodes of an oversold U.S. Treasury market since the year 2000.3 Our goal was to determine how long it typically took for a resolution of oversold Treasury market conditions. Unsurprisingly, we concluded that the longest episodes of oversold Treasuries occurred when U.S. economic growth and core inflation were both accelerating, and vice versa. At the time of that report, all of the technical indicators that we looked at were signaling that Treasury bearishness was deeply entrenched (Chart 13). Now, four months later, there has been some change in those indicators: Chart 13UST Technical Indicators##BR##Are More Mixed Now UST Technical Indicators Are More Mixed Now UST Technical Indicators Are More Mixed Now The 10-year Treasury yield relative to its 200-day moving average: then, +43bps; now, +18bps The trailing 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index: then, -4.3%; now, -0.6% The J.P. Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders: then, very large underweight duration positioning; now, positioning is neutral The Market Vane index of bullish sentiment for Treasuries: then, near the bottom of the range since 2000; now, still near that same level The CFTC data on speculator positioning in 10-year U.S. Treasury futures: then, a large net short of -8% (scaled by open interest); now, still a large net short of -11%. Therefore, the message from the technical indicators is more mixed now than in March. Price momentum and duration positioning is now neutral, while sentiment and speculative positions remain stretched. The former suggests that there is scope for Treasury yields to begin climbing again, while the latter implies that there may still be room for some counter-trend short-covering Treasury rallies in the near term. In our March study, we defined the duration of each episode of an oversold Treasury market by the following conditions: The start date was when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 30bps above its 200-day moving average and the Market Vane Treasury bullish sentiment index dipped below 50; The end-date was when the yield declined below its 200-day moving average. The details of each of those episodes can be found in Table 1. This is the same table that we presented back in March, but we have now added the current episode. At 150 days in length, this is already the fourth longest period of an oversold Treasury market since 2000. Yet perhaps most surprising is the fact that Treasury yields are essentially unchanged since the start date of the current episode (March 20th, 2018). There is no other period in our study that where yields did not decline while the oversold market resolved itself. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold U.S. Treasury Market The Bond Bear Market Is Not Over The Bond Bear Market Is Not Over Perhaps this can be interpreted as a sign that there is still scope for a final short-covering Treasury rally before this current oversold episode can truly end. Yet as we concluded in our March study, it took an average of 156 days for an oversold market to be fully corrected if U.S. growth was accelerating (i.e. the ISM manufacturing index was rising) and core PCE inflation were both rising at the same time - as is currently the case (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing U.S. Growth/Inflation Backdrop Points To Yields Consolidating, Not Reversing The longest such episode in 2003/04 lasted for 203 days before the 10-year yield fell below its 200-day moving average. Yet the second longest episode (196 days) occurred in 2013/14, and Treasury yields ended up climbing to a new cyclical high before eventually peaking. Given the underlying positive momentum in both U.S. economic growth and inflation, but with a mixed message from the technical indicators, we suspect that this current oversold episode may have further to run. Yet as we concluded back in March, and still believe today, it will prove difficult to earn meaningful returns betting on a counter-trend decline in yields this time, as any such move will likely be modest in size and lengthy in duration. Bottom Line: Some of the oversold technical conditions in the U.S. Treasury market have turned more neutral, but sentiment remains very bearish and there are large speculative short positions. With both U.S. growth and inflation accelerating, we recommend sticking with a strategic below-benchmark U.S. duration stance rather than playing for a tactical short-covering Treasury rally. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trendless, Friendless Bond Market", dated July 17th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The return on this trade is calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays 7-10-year government bond indices for the U.S. and Germany, adjusted for duration differences between the indices. The German return is hedged into U.S. dollars, as this trade was done on a currency-hedged basis. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering From Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Bond Bear Market Is Not Over The Bond Bear Market Is Not Over Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Subdued long-term inflation expectations and central bank bond purchases have suppressed the term premium. This is set to change, as quantitative easing turns into quantitative tightening and shrinking output gaps around the world start to push up inflation. The neutral rate in the U.S. is likely higher than the Federal Reserve realizes, which could leave the Fed behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. A spike in the term premium is unlikely this year, given the prospect of a stronger dollar and ongoing stresses in emerging markets. Next year may be a different story, however. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. Asset allocators should keep equity and credit exposure at neutral. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over cyclicals. Feature The Mystery Of The Falling Term Premium The yield on a bond can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium. Historically, the term premium has been positive, meaning that investors could expect to earn a higher return by purchasing a bond rather than by rolling over a short-term bill.1 More recently, the term premium has turned negative in many economies (Chart 1). Not only are investors willing to forego the extra return for taking on duration risk, but they are actually willing to sacrifice return when buying long-term bonds. Chart 1Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low There are two main reasons why the term premium has fallen: Long-term inflation expectations have been very subdued, which has made bonds a hedge against bad economic outcomes. Central bank purchases have depressed yields, while forward guidance has dampened interest-rate volatility. Bonds And Risk Some commentators like to describe the riskiness of a security by how volatile its price is, or if they want to get a bit more sophisticated, the skew of its returns. But this is not really the right way to think about risk. As Harry Markowitz first discussed in 1952 in his seminal paper "Portfolio Selection," investors ultimately care about their overall level of wealth. If the price of a certain security goes up when the prices of all others go down, investors should prefer to hold this particular security even if it offers a subpar expected return. Bonds today play the role of this safe security. Chart 2 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and late-1990s: Bond yields back then tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. This made bonds a bad hedge against lower equity prices. Chart 2Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined whenever the stock market has swooned. Since a lower bond yield implies a higher bond price, bonds have been a good hedge against equity risk in particular, and a weaker economy in general. As a consequence, investors are now willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds. This has bid up the price of bonds, so much so that the term premium has dipped into negative territory. Receding Inflation Fears Have Made Bonds Safer Why did the correlation between bond yields and stock market returns change? The answer has a lot to do with what happened to inflation. Bond yields can go up because of expectations of stronger growth or because of the anticipation of higher inflation. The former is good for equities, while the latter is typically bad for equities because it heralds additional monetary tightening. As inflation expectations became increasingly unhinged in the second half of the 1960s, inflationary shocks became the dominant driver of bond yields. When bond yields went up during that period, stock prices usually fell. That changed in the 1990s, as inflation stabilized at low levels and growth became the primary driver of yields once again (Chart 3). Chart 3Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Following the financial crisis, inflationary concerns were supplanted by worries about deflation. Falling inflation is generally good for bond investors. If inflation declines, the real purchasing power of a bond's interest and principal payments will go up. For investors who have to mark-to-market their portfolios, the benefits of lower inflation are especially clear. A decline in inflation will take the pressure off central banks to hike rates. This will cause the price of existing bonds to rise, delivering an immediate capital gain to their holders. Moreover, to the extent that falling inflation expectations typically accompany rising worries about the growth outlook, investors will benefit from a decline in the expected path of real interest rates. QE And The Term Premium While falling inflation expectations have been the most important driver of the decline in the term premium, central bank asset purchases have also lent a helping hand. In standard macroeconomic models, bond yields are determined at the margin by the willingness of private investors to hold the existing stock of debt. If a central bank buys bonds, this reduces the volume of bonds that the private sector can hold. To induce private investors to hold fewer bonds, bond yields must decline. There is no consensus about how much quantitative easing has depressed bond yields. A Fed study published in April of last year estimated that QE had depressed the 10-year yield by 100 basis points at the time of writing, a number that the authors expected to decline to 85 basis points by the end of 2017.2 Other studies found that the peak impact on yields has ranged from 90-to-200 basis points. One thing that is empirically undeniable is that there is a large international component to bond yields. The steep decline in the U.S. term premium in 2014 was mainly driven by the expectation - ultimately proven correct - that the ECB would launch its own QE program. Asset purchases by the Bank of Japan, along with its yield curve control policy, also contributed to lower bond yields in the rest of the world. Things are beginning to change, however (Chart 4). The Fed is now letting its balance sheet shrink by about $40 billion per month, a number that will rise to $50 billion in October. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB intends to start tapering asset purchases later this year. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but even there, the pace of annual purchases has fallen from about 80 trillion yen in 2015-16 to 35 trillion at present. Meanwhile, the use of forward guidance - which was arguably even more instrumental in suppressing interest rate volatility and pushing down the term premium than QE - is likely to be scaled back, at least in the United States. Fed Chair Powell said on May 25: "I think [forward guidance] will have a significantly smaller role going forward." Incoming New York Fed President John Williams echoed this sentiment, noting in a Bloomberg interview that "I think this forward guidance, at some point, will be past its shelf life."3 Opening The Fiscal Spigots Just as central banks are purchasing fewer bonds in the open market, bond issuance is set to rise. Usually the U.S. budget deficit narrows whenever the unemployment rate declines, as strong economic growth draws in more tax revenue and spending on social programs drops (Chart 5). Things are different this time around. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the U.S. budget deficit to increase from 2.4% of GDP in 2015 to 4.6% of GDP in 2019. Chart 4From Quantitative Easing To ##br##Quantitative Tightening From Quantitative Easing To Quantitative Tightening From Quantitative Easing To Quantitative Tightening Chart 5Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even ##br##If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The Trump tax cuts have imperiled the long-term fiscal outlook. Up until last year, the U.S. fiscal picture appeared much better than it once did. In 2009, the amount of federal debt held by the public was projected to exceed 250% of GDP in 2046. By 2016, that forecast had been reduced to 113% of GDP, thanks mainly to the economic recovery and slower projected spending growth on health care following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Chart 6). The Trump tax cuts have blown those forecasts out of the water. We estimate that government debt held by the public will increase to almost 190% of GDP in 2046 if current policies are maintained. Chart 6Trump Tax Cuts Have Put Debt Trajectory ##br##Back On An Unsustainable Path Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets While the stock of debt, rather than the flow, determines bond yields in the standard bond pricing model, flows can still matter if they provide a reliable signal as to how large the stock of debt will be in the future. Given that changes in fiscal policy are often hard to reverse, the deterioration in the fiscal outlook suggests that the stock of government debt will be much larger than investors had expected a few years ago. This justifies a higher term premium today. Broken Accelerator? Subdued inflation expectations have kept the term premium in check, but the prospect of ill-timed fiscal stimulus raises doubts about whether this state of affairs will persist. What would happen to inflation if the economy found itself in an overheated state for a prolonged period of time? The truth is that no one really knows the answer to that question. Some prominent economists have contended that nothing terrible would transpire. They argue that the entire concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is passé. In their view, the magnitude of economic slack determines the level of inflation, not the rate of change in inflation. Recent data provides some support to their views. Shrinking output gaps in much of the world during the past eight years have failed to raise inflation by very much, let alone cause inflation to accelerate to the upside (Chart 7). If an overheated economy simply results in modestly higher inflation, rather than increasing inflation, central banks have little to fear. A bit more inflation would allow central bankers to target a higher nominal interest rate, thus giving them greater scope to cut rates in the event of an economic downturn. Higher inflation could also improve labor market flexibility by permitting real wages to fall in the presence of nominal wage rigidities.4 In addition, as we have argued in the past, modestly higher inflation could make the financial system less susceptible to asset bubbles.5 Unfortunately, the case for letting the economy overheat is not so straightforward. For one thing, the relationship between inflation and unemployment tends to be non-linear. As Chart 8 illustrates, an economy's aggregate supply curve is likely to be quite shallow when there is a lot of excess capacity but rather steep when most of the slack has been absorbed. We may simply have not yet reached the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. Chart 7Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained ##br##Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets The experience of the late 1960s illustrates this point. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the decade, even as the unemployment rate continued to drift lower. In economic parlance, the Phillips curve was very flat. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, core inflation took off, rising from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in 1967 (Chart 9). Inflation ultimately made its way to 6% in 1970, three years before the first oil shock struck. Anchors Away The upward trend in inflation observed during the 1970s underscores another point, which is that there is no unique mapping between the unemployment rate and inflation. To use a bit of economic jargon, not only does the slope of the Phillips curve vary depending on what the unemployment rate is, but the intercept of the curve could potentially move up or down in response to changes in long-term inflation expectations (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Economy Began To Overheat Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once The Economy Began To Overheat Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once The Economy Began To Overheat Chart 10An Increase In Inflation Expectations Can ##br##Cause The Phillips Curve To Shift Upwards Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Chart 11Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots This is a point that Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps made more than fifty years ago. Friedman and Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. As the two economists correctly noted, however, such an outcome would only occur if people systematically underestimated what inflation would end up being. If people made inflation forecasts in a fairly rational manner, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. One of the errors that central banks made in the 1970s is that they kept interest rates too low for too long in the mistaken belief that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a decline in the growth rate in the economy's productive capacity and a higher equilibrium rate of unemployment. Today, the error may be in thinking that the neutral rate of interest is lower than it really is. As we argued several weeks ago, cyclical factors have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 Neither the Fed dots nor market pricing are adequately discounting this possibility (Chart 11). Inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 12). By the time the Fed realizes it is behind the curve, inflation could already be substantially higher. The fact that the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge - which leads core CPI inflation by about 18 months - has risen to over 3% provides some evidence in support of this view (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Term Premium Explosion: A Rising Risk To Markets Chart 13Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Investment Conclusions A sudden increase in the term premium could set in motion a vicious circle where bond yields rise and the stock market falls at the same. In such a setting, bonds would lose much of their appeal as a hedge against equity drawdowns. This could put even more upward pressure on the term premium, leading to even lower stock prices. Chart 14 shows that the MOVE index, a measure of implied volatility for the Treasury market, remains near historically low levels. Just as investors were too complacent about the possibility of an equity volatility spike earlier this year, they are too complacent about the possibility of an increase in bond volatility. Chart 14Investors Are Too Complacent Investors Are Too Complacent Investors Are Too Complacent Getting the timing of any change in the term premium is critical, of course. It often takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation. The unemployment rate fell nearly two percentage points below its full employment level in the 1960s before inflation took off. The U.S. economy is only now starting to boil over. Moreover, if the dollar continues to strengthen over the coming months, as we expect, this could put downward pressure on commodity prices. Thus, we do not foresee a major inflation-induced spike in the term premium this year. Next year may be a very different story. If inflation ratchets higher in 2019, the term premium could jump. The resulting tightening in financial conditions could pave the way for a recession in 2020. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. We downgraded global equities and credit exposure to neutral last month. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over deep cyclicals such as industrials and materials. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Note that the term premium and the slope of the yield curve are different concepts. The slope of the yield curve measures the difference in yields between two maturities at any given point in time. In contrast, the term premium measures the difference between the return on a long-term bond and the return an investor would receive by rolling over a short-term bill over the life of that bond. Unlike the slope of the yield curve, which can be observed directly, the term premium has to be estimated using market expectations of the future path of short-term rates. 2 Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, "The Effect of the Federal Reserve's Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates," FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017); Edison Yu, "Did Quantitative Easing Work?" Economic Insight, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Research Department (First quarter 2016); and "Unconventional Monetary Policies -- Recent Experience And Prospects," IMF (April 18, 2013). 3 Jeanna Smialek, "Powell Sees Significantly Smaller Role for Fed Forward Guidance," Bloomberg (May 25, 2018); and Jeanna Smialek, "The Incoming New York Fed Chief Talks About Inflation and the Yield Curve," Bloomberg (May 16 2018). 4 A low-inflation environment can have adverse economic consequences during economic downturns due to the presence of downward rigidity of nominal wages. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers tend to be unwilling or unable to cut nominal wages. In this context, higher inflation provides a potential way to overcome nominal wage rigidity as it helps real wages to adjust to negative shocks. When inflation is low, real wages become less flexible, making it more likely that firms will opt for job cuts as a means to decrease overall costs. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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

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

Highlights Investors are too complacent about the risks of a trade war. Standard economic models understate the potential economic damage that a trade war could cause. Global equities would suffer mightily from a trade war. Deep cyclical sectors would be hardest hit. Financial equities would also fare poorly. Regionally, European and EM stock markets would underperform. A trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. A contained trade war would likely be somewhat dollar-bearish. In contrast, a full-out war could send the greenback soaring. Feature From Phony War To Real War? After months of posturing, Trump's trade war is starting to heat up. The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods last Friday. Tariffs on another $16 billion of goods are set to go in effect on July 20th. China has stated that it will retaliate in kind. On Tuesday, Trump further upped the ante, announcing that he will levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31. He also threatened tariffs on another $300 billion on top of that if China still refuses to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than what China exported to the U.S. last year! China is not the only country in Trump's crosshairs. The Trump administration levied tariffs of up to 25% on steel and aluminum from the EU, Canada, Mexico, and other U.S. allies on June 1, 2018. The affected regions have retaliated with their own tariffs. As Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, has repeatedly stressed, there is little reason to think that trade tensions will ease over the coming months. Protectionism is popular with the American public (Chart 1). Trump ran on a protectionist platform and now he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises. It does not help that Trump is accusing foreign governments of doing things they are not doing. Chart 2 shows that U.S. tariffs are actually higher than in most other G7 economies. As we have argued in the past, the U.S. runs a persistent current account deficit because it has a higher neutral real rate of interest - otherwise known as r-star - than most other countries.1 Standard interest rate parity equations imply that a country with a relatively high neutral rate will have an "overvalued" currency that is expected to weaken over time, whereas a country with a low neutral rate will have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to strengthen over time. Intuitively, this must happen because investors will only hold low-yielding bonds if they expect a currency to strengthen. The result is a current account deficit for countries with overvalued currencies such as the U.S., and a current account surplus for regions with undervalued currencies such as the euro area (Chart 3). Chart 1Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S. How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War Chart 2Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War Chart 3Interest Rates And Current Account Balances How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War The Economic Costs Of A Trade War How much damage could a trade war do to the global economy? As it turns out, this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Standard economic theory offers little guidance on the matter. By definition, global exports are always equal to imports. In a conventional Keynesian model, countries with trade deficits would gain some demand from a trade war, while countries with surpluses would lose some demand. However, the contribution of net exports to global demand would always be zero. Granted, there would be some efficiency losses, but in the standard Ricardian model of comparative advantage, they would not be that large. As Box 1 explains, the deadweight loss from a tariff can be computed as one-half times the change in the tariff rate multiplied by the percentage-point decline in imports that results from the tariff. Suppose, for example, that a trade war leads to a 10% across-the-board increase in U.S. tariffs, which causes U.S. imports to fall by 30%.2 Given that imports are 15% of U.S. GDP, the resulting deadweight loss would be 0.5*0.1*0.3*15=0.225% of GDP. That's obviously not a lot. The True Cost Of A Trade War Is Likely To Be High Our sense is that the true cost of a trade war would be much greater than these simple models suggest. There are at least six reasons for this: Most simple models assume that labor and capital are completely fungible and that the economy is always at full employment. In practice, it is doubtful that workers could easily move to companies that would benefit from tariff protection from those that would suffer from retaliatory measures. Workers have specialized skills. Likewise, a piece of machinery that is useful in one sector of the economy may be completely useless in another. Industries are often concentrated in particular regions. As such, a trade war could severely degrade the value of the existing stock of human and physical capital. This would result in lower potential GDP. It would also result in temporarily higher unemployment as workers, laid off from firms which have been adversely affected by tariffs, are forced to scramble for a new job elsewhere. Comparative advantage is not the only source of trade gains. Arguably more important are economies of scope and scale. A firm that has access to a global market can spread fixed costs over a larger quantity of output, thus lowering average costs (and ultimately prices). The existence of large global markets also allows companies to offer niche products that might not be worthwhile to develop for smaller markets. Modern trade is dominated by the exchange of intermediate goods within complex supply chains (Chart 4). This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry. U.S. firms are particularly vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions because the Trump administration has dotardly chosen to levy tariffs mainly on intermediate and capital goods (Chart 5). This stands in contrast to China and the EU, which have raised tariffs mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner (agricultural products in Trump-supporting rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes, which are manufactured in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin). Chart 4Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War Chart 5The U.S. Is Not Very Smart In ##br## Implementing A Protectionist Agenda How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War Uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of a trade war could cause companies to postpone new investment spending. A vast economic literature pioneered by Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck has shown that firms tend to defer capital expenditure decisions when faced with rising uncertainty.3 Furthermore, as I discussed in an academic paper which was published early on in my career, business investment is typically higher when firms have access to larger markets.4 Higher tariffs could lead to an implicit tightening in fiscal policy. If the U.S. raises tariffs by an average of ten percentage points across all imports, a reasonable estimate is that this would imply a tightening in fiscal policy by around 1% of GDP - enough to wipe out the entire stimulus from Trump's tax cuts. Of course, the tariff revenue could be injected back into the economy through more tax cuts or increased spending. However, given the possibility that gridlock will increase in Washington if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November, it is far from obvious that this would happen. A trade war would lead to lower equity prices and higher credit spreads. This would translate into tighter financial conditions. Historically, changes in financial conditions have been highly correlated with changes in real GDP growth (Chart 6). Changes in financial conditions have, in turn, led the stock market. The S&P 500 index has risen at an annualized pace of 10% since 1970 when BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI) was above its 250-day moving average, while gaining only 1.5% when the FCI was below its 250-day average (Chart 7). Given today's elevated valuations across many asset markets, the risk is that a trade war triggers a sizable correction in asset prices. Chart 6Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Chart 7The Link Between Financial Conditions ##br##And The Stock Market The Link Between Financial Conditions And The Stock Market The Link Between Financial Conditions And The Stock Market Protecting Your Equity Portfolio From A Trade War We think investors are understating the risks of a trade war. This, along with a host of other reasons, prompted us to downgrade global risk assets from overweight to neutral on June 20.5 As bad as a trade war would be for Main Street, it would be even worse for Wall Street. The mega- cap companies that comprise the S&P 500 have a lot more exposure to foreign markets and global supply chains than the broader U.S. economy. The "beta" of corporate profits to changes in GDP growth is also quite high (Chart 8). Chart 9 shows how U.S. equity sectors performed during days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. We identified seven separate days, including Wednesday's selloff, which was spurred by Trump's threat to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. Chart 8Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Chart 9This Is How Markets Trade When They Are Worrying About Trade Wars How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War The chart shows that deep cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, and energy fared badly during days of protectionist angst. Financials also underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, health care, and telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer stocks outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and real estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Considering that the sector composition of European and EM bourses tends to be more tilted towards cyclicals than the U.S., it is not surprising that the former have underperformed during days of increased protectionist worries. Bonds: Yields Likely To Rise, But A Trade War Is A Risk To That View In contrast to equities, a trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. Admittedly, the imposition of tariffs would push up import prices. However, the effect on inflation would be temporary. Just as the Fed tends to disregard one-off increases in commodity prices, it will play down any transient boost to inflation stemming from a trade war. Instead, the Fed will focus on the growth impact, which is likely to be negative. To be clear, trade jitters are not the only thing affecting bond yields. Judging by numerous business surveys, the U.S. economy is starting to overheat (Chart 10). Last week's employment report does not alter this conclusion. While the unemployment rate rose by 0.2 percentage points, this was mainly because of a jump in the participation rate. Considering that the number of workers outside the labor force who want a job is near a record low, the ability of the economy to draw in additional workers is limited (Chart 11). Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is Overheating The U.S. Economy Is Overheating The U.S. Economy Is Overheating Chart 11A Small Pool Of People Want ##br##To Jump Into The Labor Market A Small Pool Of People Want To Jump Into The Labor Market A Small Pool Of People Want To Jump Into The Labor Market Historically, continuing unemployment claims have closely tracked the unemployment rate over time (Chart 12). The fact that continuing claims have dropped by 9% since the end of January, while the unemployment rate has dipped by only 0.1 percentage points, suggests that the unemployment rate will fall further over the coming months. On balance, we continue to maintain our bearish recommendation on Treasurys, but acknowledge that a trade war is a risk to that view. Trade Wars And Currencies Unlike safe-haven bonds, whose yields are likely to decline in proportion to the magnitude of the trade war, the impact on the dollar is more difficult to predict. On the one hand, a modest trade dispute is likely to be somewhat dollar bearish, inasmuch as it hurts U.S. growth and forces the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes. Since most other major central banks are not in a position to cut rates, expected rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners would narrow. On the other hand, a severe trade war would probably be dollar bullish. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. still tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. The U.S. is a fairly closed economy, and hence would be relatively less affected by a breakdown in global trade. Commodities are also likely to suffer if trade flows decline (Chart 13). Lower commodity prices tend to be bullish for the greenback. Moreover, as we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, a tit-for-tat trade war with China could force the Chinese government to devalue the yuan. That would have a knock-on effect on other emerging market currencies. Chart 12Unemployment Can Fall Further Unemployment Can Fall Further Unemployment Can Fall Further Chart 13Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Notably, the greenback has fared better recently than it did earlier this year during days when protectionist rhetoric intensified. On Wednesday, the broad trade-weighted dollar gained 0.3% while the DXY picked up 0.6%. This supports our view that the dollar will strengthen over the remainder of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 This assumes an elasticity of import demand of 3, which is broadly consistent with most academic estimates. 3 Avinash K. Dixit, and Robert S. Pindyck, "Investment Under Uncertainty," Princeton University Press, (1994). 4 Peter Berezin, "Border Effects Within A Dynamic Equilibrium Trade Model," The International Trade Journal, 14:3 (2000), 235-282. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. BOX 1 The Deadweight Loss From A Trade War Box Chart 1Tariffs Increase Budget Revenues, But Lead To A Bigger Loss In Consumer Surplus How To Trade A Trade War How To Trade A Trade War In the simplest models of international trade, an increase in tariffs leads to higher prices, resulting in a loss of consumer surplus. This is depicted by the blue region (ABCE) in Box Chart 1. The government collects revenue from the tariff shown by the red-colored rectangle (ABDE). The difference between the loss in consumer surplus and the gain in revenue - often referred to as the "deadweight loss" from a tariff - is depicted by the green-colored triangle (BCD). Arithmetically, the area of the triangle can be calculated as: Deadweight loss = 0.5 x Tariff x (Pre-tariff level of imports - Post-tariff level of imports) If one divides both sides by GDP, the formula reduces to: Deadweight loss/GDP = 0.5 x Tariff x Percentage Point Change In Import Share of GDP Resulting From Tariff There are many things in the real world that are not captured by this equation. For example, if the country that imposes the tariff is sufficiently large, this could push down the international price of the goods that it imports. The country would then benefit from an improvement in its terms of trade. As Robert Torrens showed back in the 19th century, if a country has any degree of market power (i.e., it is not a complete price-taker on international markets), there will always be a level of tariffs that makes it better off. The caveat is that this "optimal tariff" only exists if other countries do not retaliate. If everyone retaliates against everyone else, everyone will be worse off from a trade war. Moreover, as discussed in the main text, there are many factors that this simple model does not capture which could result in significant economic damage from raising tariffs even when retaliation does not take place, especially in cases where the tariffs are imposed on intermediate and capital goods. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The fundamental case to buy the dollar and sell non-U.S. risk assets is currently extremely obvious. This suggests that investors likely have already placed their bets. As such, the case for a counter-trend correction espoused last week has grown. The impact of tariffs on the dollar seems more dependent on the dollar's momentum than economics. As a result, getting a handle on how the greenback's momentum will evolve seems crucial. The behavior of Chinese assets, various currency pairs and other assets suggests the dollar may experience a significant loss of momentum that could prompt a correction of DXY to 92. The Canadian dollar seems the best place to take advantage of this move. Feature The currency market does not feel right. We do not mean that it is sick; however, we cannot help but feel a great level of discomfort right now. The economic environment clearly supports a stronger dollar. Global liquidity is weak, global growth has weakened, the yuan has been very soft and trade wars are on the front page of newspapers as the Trump administration has announced an additional $200 billion of potential new tariffs on Chinese exports. Hence, the bullish-dollar negative-EM story seems like a "no brainer." However, there rarely, if ever, is such thing as a "no-brainer" in the FX market. When fundamentals point as obviously in one direction as they do today, the narrative is likely to be appreciated by the vast majority of market participants. As a result, the bets are likely to have been placed. This risk seems especially acute today. Hence, we recommend investors temporarily move away from the dollar-bullish thesis. Occam's Razor At first glance, the recent wave of strength in the dollar seems to have been prompted by the new wave of trade war intensification. While China has not announced new tariffs on the U.S., the renminbi has continued to depreciate, evocating memories harkening back to August 2015 and the emerging market calamity that culminated in January 2016. While the risk created by a lower CNY is real, the dollar has had a schizophrenic approach to pricing in the impact of tariffs. In the first half of 2018, announcements of tariffs were greeted by a weaker dollar. However, since May, the same type of news has been greeted by a stronger dollar. An economic argument can be made as to why this is the case. In early 2018, global rates were still at rock-bottom levels, with the GDP-weighted average policy rate in the G-10 outside the U.S. being at 0.2%. Moreover, U.S. inflation was still tepid, but the fed funds rate was 1.5%. As result, if tariffs were to slow growth, only the Fed had room to ease. Moreover, since as of early 2018 global growth still looked to be on the upswing, it was argued that global monetary conditions were still accommodative enough than non-U.S. growth would barely be affected. Today, global growth is already showing signs of sagging, with weakness in Korean exports vindicating this analysis (Chart I-1). This means that growth outside the U.S. is perceived as more vulnerable to tariffs than was the case back in the first quarter of this year, especially as the amount of tariffs imposed on the world has grown. While the U.S. will also suffer from these tariffs, it is in better position to weather their impact. As such, since FX determination goes beyond just rate differentials and is also affected by growth differentials, the greater risk to non-U.S. growth is what is lifting the dollar. This narrative makes sense and is probably playing a role in the dollar's strength. However, we suspect something much simpler is exerting an even greater influence on the greenback: momentum. As we have long been arguing, the dollar is the epitome of momentum currencies in the G-10 (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-1Global Growth Slowdown Global Growth Slowdown Global Growth Slowdown Chart I-2USD Is A Momentum Currency That Sinking Feeling That Sinking Feeling Among all the momentum strategies we have tested, the one that works best at capturing the momentum continuation effect in the USD is tracking crossovers of the 20-day and 130-day moving averages. When the 20-day moving average is above the 130-day one, the dollar has an upward bias that is tradeable, and vice versa when the faster moving average lies below the slower one. Through most of 2017 all the way until May 9, 2018, the 20-day moving average for the dollar was in fact underneath the 130-day moving average. However, since May 10, it has been above (Chart I-3). Here is where things get interesting. When the moving average crossover strategy was sending a bearish signal for the greenback, tariff announcements would weaken the dollar; but since the crossover has been in bullish territory, tariff announcements have been lifting the dollar (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Favorable Momentum ##br##Backdrop On The Dollar Favorable Momentum Backdrop On The Dollar Favorable Momentum Backdrop On The Dollar Chart I-4Momentum Drives The Dollar's ##br##Reaction To Tariffs Momentum Drives The Dollar's Reaction To Tariffs Momentum Drives The Dollar's Reaction To Tariffs What does this mean for investors going forward? So long as the dollar is in a bullish momentum configuration, trade announcements will support the greenback. However, on this front we could expect a period of temporary calm after the storm (a low-conviction call, to be clear). The Trump team just announced an enormous tariffs package, Europe and Canada have put in place their own retaliation tariffs, the NATO meeting is over and the CNY has fallen by 6.4% since April 11. For the dollar to strengthen further, the onus thus falls back on momentum itself and market signals. But, as we highlighted last week, we are concerned that the dollar momentum could actually weaken from current levels. Bottom Line: Trade war risks seem to have been supporting the USD and weakened EM assets. However, the picture is not that clear-cut. Until May, moving average crossovers for the dollar were sending a bearish signal; during that time frame, tariff announcements were welcomed by a weak dollar. Since May, the dollar's moving average crossovers have been sending a bullish signal; since that time, tariff announcements have been welcomed by a strong dollar, which in turn has weighed on non-U.S. risk assets. Thus, with a likely period of calm on the trade front in the coming weeks, the outlook for momentum is likely to determine the trend in the dollar and in the price of risk assets outside the U.S. Reading The Market Tea Leaves At this point, having a sense of how momentum is likely to evolve is crucial. This is where that sinking feeling comes into play. Fundamentals seem to give a clear picture, but when the picture is so clear, a trap often lies ahead. The first clue to this trap comes from the Zew expectations survey. The Zew is a survey of market professionals, asking them their view on growth, and so on. These views are likely to be reflected in current market pricing. What is interesting is that this global growth survey has been tanking violently. The perception is thus that global growth is decelerating fast. Indeed, global growth has slowed, but as the global PMI illustrates - a variable that moves coincidently with the global Zew - it is not falling nearly as fast as expectations are (Chart I-5). This creates a risk for the dollar bulls - bulls who need further growth weakness to justify additional dollar strength. China is at the epicenter of the global growth slowdown. Interestingly, the Shanghai Composite Index is already testing the lows it experienced in early 2016 (Chart I-6). However, the Chinese economic picture is not as dire as was the case back then. PPI inflation is at 4.6% today, while it hit -5.9% at its nadir in November 2015. Thus, real interest rates faced by borrowers are 9.9% lower than they were back then. Moreover, the Li-Keqiang index of industrial activity is rebounding smartly. Finally, while FX reserves are contracting, they are not falling at the pace of US$108 billion a month endured in the worst months of 2015, which means that liquidity conditions in China are not experiencing the same tightening as back then. In fact, the Chinese repo rate is currently falling, supporting this notion (Chart I-7). This combination of economic indicators and financial market prices suggests that ample bad news is already priced into Chinese assets and thus China-linked assets for now. Chart I-5Analysts Know Growth Is Slowing Analysts Know Growth Is Slowing Analysts Know Growth Is Slowing Chart I-6Chinese Shares As Sick As In Early 2016 Chinese Shares As Sick As In Early 2016 Chinese Shares As Sick As In Early 2016 Chart I-7Some Reflation In China? Some Reflation In China? Some Reflation In China? Chinese shares expressed in USD-terms are also interesting. Not only are they re-testing their 2016 lows, but by the end of June their RSI oscillator had hit more deeply oversold levels than in January 2016 (Chart I-8). Very saliently, despite this week's announcement of a potential $200 billion of new tariffs imposed on China, Chinese shares expressed in U.S. dollars are not making new lows, and the RSI is slowly rebounding. This resilience is surprising, considering the magnitude of the bad news. Copper too is interesting. It seems that Dr. Copper has had a bit of a hangover lately, as its response speed has slowed considerably. Copper used to be a very reliable leading indicator, but since 2015 it seems to have become a coincident indicator of EM equities (Chart I-9). The recent 16% decline in the price of copper seems to be a catch-up to the weakness already evident in EM assets and EM currencies more than an early signal of additional problems to come for these markets. In fact, it may even indicate an intermediate capitulation in the price of these assets. Chart I-8Chinese Shares In USD: A Rebound Soon? Chinese Shares In USD: A Rebound Soon? Chinese Shares In USD: A Rebound Soon? Chart I-9Dr. Copper Is Hungover Dr. Copper Is Hungover Dr. Copper Is Hungover Other than these assets directly linked to China, since the end of June Treasury yields have also not been able to fall lower, and have proven very resilient in the face of the latest wave of CNY weakness and Trump tariffs (Chart I-10, top panel). Additionally, the euro/yen exchange rate, which is normally very levered to global growth conditions, has not only been rallying but breaking out of a downward trend in place since the beginning of 2018 (Chart I-10, second panel). Moreover, the extraordinarily pro-cyclical AUD/JPY cross bottomed in March and looks barely affected by the recent tumult (Chart 10, third panel). Finally, the growth-sensitive EUR/CHF is currently also strengthening, not weakening (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The behavior of all these market prices is inconsistent with an imminent new upswing in the dollar. The behavior of these variables is instead consistent with the movement of our favorite leading indicator of global growth: EM carry trades. We have used the EM carry trade to flag risks to global growth that have gripped the dollar and non-U.S. risk assets in recent months. However, despite the bad news piled onto the global economy, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen seems to be trying to form a bottom (Chart I-11). This could indicate that we may be in for a period of temporary stabilization in global growth - a phenomenon that would weigh on the dollar's momentum. Without this ally, the dollar should correct meaningfully and non-U.S. risk assets should stage a rally. When thinking of a target for the dollar, a correction toward 92 on the DXY, implying a rebound of just under 1.20 on EUR/USD, seems very likely. At these levels, it will be time to re-evaluate whether the thesis we espoused last week - that this correction is a counter-trend move - is still valid or not. Also, we would expect commodity currencies to benefit even more than the euro in the context of this correction. Commodity currencies are especially levered to China, and Chinese stocks seem well positioned for a significant rebound. Moreover, as Chart I-12 illustrates, commodity currencies have been stronger than the relative performance of Swedish stocks vis-à-vis U.S. ones suggests, implying some underlying support. Finally, the yen and Swiss franc should prove the greatest losers in this environment. Chart I-10Despite Bad News, These Pro-Cylical Prices Are Resilient Despite Bad News, These Pro-Cylical Prices Are Resilient Despite Bad News, These Pro-Cylical Prices Are Resilient Chart I-11Stabilization In EM Carry Trades Stabilization In EM Carry Trades Stabilization In EM Carry Trades Chart I-12Important Divergence Important Divergence Important Divergence In terms of factors we continue to monitor, the price of gold remains a key variable. While the trend line we flagged last week has been re-tested, the yellow metal has not been able to punch through it. Meanwhile, EM bonds and junk bonds too have not suffered much in the face of the recent tariffs, and the rebound that has materialized since early July still seems in place. If any of these development change, the rebound in EM assets will peter off, and the dollar greenback will continue its march higher without much of a pause. Bottom Line: Fundamentals are making an extremely clear case that the dollar will strengthen further in the coming months, and that non-U.S. risk assets are in for a dive. However, when fundamentals are as clear as they are today, especially after the market moves we have seen in recent months, they rarely translate into the price action one would anticipate. The behavior of Chinese shares, of bond yields and of various currency pairs, including EM carry-trades, suggests instead that the dollar is likely to lose momentum. However, the life blood of any dollar rally is this very momentum. As such, we worry that despite apparently massively favorable fundamentals, the dollar could experience a correction toward 92 before being able to move higher as the fundamentals currently suggest. Commodity currencies could enjoy the greatest dividend from this counter-trend move. A Few Words On The CAD The Bank of Canada was anticipated to deliver a dovish hike this week, increasing rates to 1.5%, but also downgrading the path of additional expected rates. The BoC did deliver a hike, but it stuck to its guns and did not temper future interest rate expectations. Within the BoC's analytical framework, this move makes sense. Despite incorporating both tariff and NAFTA risks into its forecast, the BoC has barely changed its growth expectations for Canada. Essentially, the hit to Canadian exports will be balanced out by the hit to Canadian imports created by Canada's own retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. This means that the lack of excess capacity in the Canadian economy remains as salient a problem for the BoC as it was before NAFTA risks entered the picture. This warrants higher rates. The economic backdrop seems to indeed be in agreement with the BoC. This summer's Business Outlook Survey showed that Canadian businesses continue to find it increasingly difficult to meet demand and that labor shortages are still prevalent and becoming more intense, highlighting the upside risk to wages (Chart I-13). Higher wages are thus likely to buffet Canadian households from the risk created by higher policy rates. Moreover, higher wages also stoke inflationary pressures, while core inflation is already at target. In this environment, a real short rate at -0.4% makes little sense. The CAD looks like the best vehicle to take advantage of a rebound in commodity currencies. The CAD is currently trading at a deep discount to its fair value (Chart I-14) and the Canadian dollar proved surprisingly resilient in the face of a 7% decline in Brent prices on Wednesday. Additionally, speculators have accumulated large short bets on the Canadian currency. With the BoC being the only central bank among G-10 commodity producing nations that is lifting rates, this would create an additional impetus for the loonie to rebound and outperform other commodity currencies. Chart I-13Canadian Capacity Pressures ##br##Point To A Hawkish BoC Canadian Capacity Pressures Point To A Hawkish BoC Canadian Capacity Pressures Point To A Hawkish BoC Chart I-14Loonie Is ##br##Cheap Loonie Is Cheap Loonie Is Cheap Bottom Line: The BoC has resumed its hiking campaign because the economy is at full capacity and inflationary pressures continue to build up, while monetary policy remains too accommodative. As a result, the cheap CAD currently seems the best G-10 currency to take advantage of the correction in the USD. We are selling USD/CAD this week. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was positive: JOLTS Job Openings climbed to 6.638 mn in May, beating expectations; Headline producer prices increased by 3.4% annually, the most in 11 years; Core producer prices increased by 2.8% in annual terms; Core consumer prices increased by 2.3% annually in June, in line with expectations, however, the month-on-month number was a bit soft; Continuing jobless claims underperformed, while initial jobless claims came in lower than expected. New threats from the White House of tariffs for USD 200 billion worth of Chinese imports circulated the media networks. At this point in time, almost 90% of U.S. imports from China are under threat of tariffs. The risks surrounding these tariffs going forward is likely to add substantially more pressure on emerging markets and commodity currencies down the road. Meanwhile, the U.S. is experiencing a robust economy with higher inflation supported by more expensive raw materials, higher lumber and housing prices, and a tight trucking market. This should keep the Fed in line with its hawkish bias, and the greenback afloat, even if on the short-run, much of this seem well discounted, raising the risk of a tactical correction in the DXY. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: The German trade balance increased to EUR 20.3 billion on the back of a 1.8% annual export growth and a 0.7% annual import growth; The Sentix Investor Confidence increased to 12.1 in July from 9.3 in June, and beating the expected 8.2; French and Italian industrial output both underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2% and 0.7% in monthly terms, respectively; The Economic Sentiment from the ZEW Survey came in less than expected for both Germany and the euro area, at -24.7 and -18.7 respectively; A slight misunderstanding between policymakers at the ECB emerged as the interpretation of interest rates being held "through the summer of 2019" proved contentious. Some officials say an increase as early as July 2019 is possible, while others rule out a move until autumn. We believe the latter is more likely, given the euro's negative reaction to the U.S.' announcement of additional tariffs of USD 200 billion imports from China, and also due to the current slowdown within the common area. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been positive: Machinery orders yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 16.5%. Moreover, labor cash earnings yearly growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.1%. Finally, housing starts yearly growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3%. USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1.4% this week. Even amid the increasing trade tensions and risk-off sentiment, the yen has been unable to rally against the dollar, as the momentum for the greenback is too strong for the yen to overcome. Overall, we favor the yen over the euro, however if the dollar were to correct at current levels, EUR/JPY would likely suffer in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Manufacturing production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1%. Moreover, Industrial production yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 0.8%. However, mortgage approvals outperformed expectations, coming in at 64.526 thousand. Finally, Markit Services PMI also surprised positively, coming in at 55.1. GBP/USD has remained flat this week. Overall, we expect cable to continue to fall, as the dollar should continue its upward momentum for the time being. That being said, on the remainder of 2018, the pound will probably outperform the euro, as the U.K. is less exposed to the effects of Chinese tightening than Europe. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: NAB Business Confidence and Conditions both underperformed expectations, coming in at 6 and 15 respectively; Westpac Consumer Confidence increase to 3.9% in July from 0.3%; Home Loans grew by 1.1%, much better than the expected -1.9%. The Aussie sold off substantially as the U.S. threatened China with further tariffs amounting to USD 200 bn worth of goods. Adding to the sell-off were copper prices, which fell by almost 3%, also triggered by the tariff announcement. Furthermore, as the Australian economy remains mired in slack, the RBA is unlikely to hike in an environment with no real wage growth. As such, the AUD is unlikely to see much durable upside this year and is likely to lag other commodity currencies in the event of a dollar correction. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Even if it can rebound on the back of USD correction, we expect this currency to ultimately fall, given that the current environment of trade tensions and Chinese tightening will weigh on high yielding currencies like the NZD. Additionally, the policies implemented by the new government like lower immigration and a dual mandate will structurally lower the neutral rate in New Zealand, which will create further downside on the NZD. However, the NZD should outperform the AUD cyclically, as Australia is more exposed to a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle, given that copper has a higher beta than dairy products. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was decent: Housing starts grew by 248,100 year-on-year, beating expectations of 210,000; Building permits increased by 4.7% in monthly terms. The Bank of Canada this week hiked interest rates to 1.5%. The Bank displayed quite a hawkish stance in its statement and Monetary Policy report, noting a stronger than expected U.S. economy, high export growth, robust inflation, and a tight labor market. In addition, the Bank incorporated the newly implemented tariffs into its policy function. Nevertheless, recent comments by Governor Poloz imply a "data dependent" approach, which is consistent with policy responses to internal inflationary pressures. We therefore expect the CAD to continue to outperform all G10 currencies except USD. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The KOF leading indicator outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. Moreover, the SVME PMI also outperformed expectations, coming in at 61.6. However, the unemployment rate underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.6%. Finally, headline inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. EUR/CHF has been flat since last week. Overall, we expect this cross to continue to go up, given that the SNB will keep intervening in the currency markets to keep the franc low enough for the economy to reach the central bank inflation mandate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.8%. Moreover, headline inflation surprised positively, coming in at 2.6%, while core inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. Finally, registered unemployment, came in at 2.2%, in line with expectations. USD/NOK has gone up by roughly 0.6% this week. While it has short-term downside, we continue to be cyclically bullish on this cross, as the upside to oil prices is limited at this point, while a tightening fed should continue to put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. That being said, the NOK will likely outperform the AUD and the NZD, given that the constrained supply of oil will help it to outperform other commodities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 The minutes from the July meeting highlighted some reservation by officials given the current economic background. The forecast is that slow rate rises will be initiated towards the end of the year. However, the majority of the Executive Board emphasized that monetary policy proceeds cautiously with hikes, given the volatile development of the exchange rate and the increased risks associated with Italy and trade protectionism. The majority also advocated for the extension of the mandate that facilitates foreign exchange intervention. However, Governors Ohlsson and Flodén argued against this view, even supporting hikes earlier as inflation is already at target. The SEK is very cheap on several valuation metrics, and thus is ripe for an up move, which is likely when the majority of the Riksbank officials aligns with a hawkish view. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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

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

Highlights Systemic, data-driven, political analysis is a "must-have" (and "nice to have" too!); Investment-relevant political analysis has to be data driven; Predicting political outcomes is difficult, but to generate geopolitical alpha investors should focus on "beating the spread," not predicting the match winner; Focus on policymaker constraints, not their preferences; The median voter is the price maker in the political marketplace. Feature Since the launch of our Geopolitical Strategy service in 2012, BCA Research has made a simple proposition to financial professionals: political analysis is a vital tool in the investor toolbox. It may not be the most important tool, or the one used most frequently. But a toolbox without it is incomplete. At this year's BCA Investment Conference - taking place in Toronto from September 23-25 - I will lead a seminar that will introduce the attendees to the method and philosophy the Geopolitical Strategy team employs to generate geopolitical alpha. As an introduction to the seminar, this note focuses on five frequent myths about geopolitical forecasting. Myth Number 1: Getting Geopolitics Right Is A "Nice To Have, Not A Must Have" Some investors remain skeptical about the value of geopolitical analysis. The holdouts most frequently respond with a variation of "this analysis is a nice to have, but it is not a must have." In other words, investment-focused political analysis is seen as ancillary to the investment decision-making process. A tool to be used when an exogenous event threatens one's strategic decisions. Another way to put it is to say "we will call you when something blows up." Table 1Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Please don't. No need. If something does "blow up," just close your eyes and buy risk assets. Table 1 lists the major geopolitical crises since the Second World War. While the average peak-to-trough decline during a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis.1 To illustrate this trend, we have grafted the average S&P 500 return following past geopolitical crises on to the current equity bull market (Chart 1). The picture is encouraging and shows the market often grinds higher even if something does "blow up." BCA's Geopolitical Strategy takes a different approach to political analysis. We seek to understand the market-relevant interplay between global policy decisions. Rather than reacting to things "blowing up," we look to proactively predict the path of fiscal, monetary, and government policy. Take our fundamental view in 2018 that the resynchronization in global growth - the dominant market narrative in 2017 - would be interrupted by de-synchronization between U.S. and Chinese policy. The U.S. economy often dictates global monetary conditions given the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. However, China often influences global fiscal policy given its oversized contribution to global growth (Chart 2). In 2017, we argued with high conviction that U.S. fiscal policy would turn stimulative, thus encouraging the Fed to hike rates at a faster pace than investors expected.2 We also argued that Chinese policymakers would continue to double-down on growth-constraining structural reforms.3 The interplay of these two views would weigh on global growth, supercharge the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world, and pull the U.S. dollar higher (Chart 3). Chart 1Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Chart 2China Makes The World Go Round Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Chart 3Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen We relied minimally on economic data in making this strategic market call. In fact, for much of 2017, economic data was not supporting our out-of-consensus view. There were few indications of a slowdown in China and the U.S. dollar kept facing headwinds. Instead, we relied on a high conviction view that politics would be stimulative to growth in the U.S. and restrictive to Chinese growth.4 This allowed us to: Recommend a high-conviction "Long U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)" view on January 31, 2018 - up 5.90% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Developed Markets Equities / Short Emerging Markets Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 12.09% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Indian Equities / Short Brazilian Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 36.40% since initiation; Recommend that clients overweight U.S. equities relative to Europe and Japan in January 2018; Highlight in April that U.S. equities would face headwinds this summer and investors should be tactically cautious. These views have now become the House View of BCA Research as a whole.5 Prescient political analysis is indeed a "nice to have." Myth Number 2: Political Data Is Useless The second-most frequent claim by geopolitical Luddites is that political data is of poor quality and thus systematic research is impossible. Our favorite two examples of this shortcoming are the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. election, which polls supposedly "got wrong." But the polls did not get Brexit and President Trump's election wrong, the pundits did. If anything, the polls were showing the Brexit camp comfortably ahead throughout June 2016. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16, a week ahead of the vote, that the polls favored the "Stay" vote. But on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%, well within the statistical "margin of error."6 That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit occurring, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% imbued by the betting markets (Chart 4). We made a case for alarm early in 2016 based on a fundamental analysis of the British electorate.7 Chart 4AOnline Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Online Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Online Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 4B... Not The Polls ... Not The Polls ... Not The Polls Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory despite her slim poll lead on the day of the election. What modelers missed is the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for President Obama, and the presence of third-party challengers. We addressed these, as well as Trump's successful "White Hype" strategy, early on in the electoral process.8 The truth is that there is an incredible wealth of political data, but investors are not familiar with it because we have become over-professionalized in our own discipline. Polling agencies, political science academics, non-governmental organizations, all provide investors with an incredible array of historical data. Some of it is of poor quality, some of it is solid. But dismissing it all outright in favor of punditry, op-eds, and the whispers of "wise old men," is folly. More recently we relied on a Pew Research survey that began in 1976 to correctly forecast that there are very few genuine fiscal conservatives in America (Chart 5). This was a critical part of our forecast, last year, that the members of the Freedom Caucus - ideologically allied with the precepts of the Tea Party revolution - would vote in favor of a massively profligate tax cut. In fact, it was Freedom Caucus members who first supported President Trump's plan to pass non-revenue neutral tax cut. Chart 5Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Another notable example is our long-held assertion that the world is multipolar and thus more likely to face paradigm shifts in terms of security and trade policy (Chart 6).9 To drive this point home, we have relied on our Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). To construct our GPI, we enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI), which was originally created by political scientists in 1963 for the Correlates of War project. Chart 6BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Political data is all around us. Just because it is not served on a platter - or accessible on a Bloomberg Terminal - does not make it useless. Myth Number 3: One Cannot Predict Politics In sports betting, gamblers are not trying to predict the outcome of a game. To be a successful gambler, one has to be agnostic to the ultimate winner. In other words, you cannot be a fan and a gambler at the same time. Instead, the goal is to "beat the spread" or choose an "over/under" on the "line" set by the casino. This is precisely what we do for a living. We do not forecast politics. We try to "beat the spread" on political outcomes set by the ultimate bookie, the market. Take our Brexit forecast. In March of 2016, we argued the probability of Brexit was closer to 50% than the 30% that was priced-in by the currency markets. Did we actually forecast that Brexit would happen? No. We argued a week ahead of the vote that Bremain would win a tight referendum. Swing and a miss, right? Wrong. Our clients do not pay us to make political forecasts. They expect us to make market forecasts. We correctly forecasted that the U.K. currency, gilts, and equity markets were not pricing in the higher-than-expected odds of a Brexit outcome. Occasionally both our political and market calls will be correct. For example, we had an extremely high conviction view that Marine Le Pen would not be able to win the French election in 2017.10 The combination of Brexit and the U.S. presidential election had bid up the probability of an anti-establishment outcome in France. Investors were imbuing an extremely erroneous conditional relationship between political outcomes in those two Anglo-Saxon countries and France. But our net assessment, made in early 2016, was that populist outcomes were far more likely in laissez-faire economies than in continental Europe, where expensive social welfare states acted as political social shock absorbers.11 Generating geopolitical alpha is the art of finding overstated and understated geopolitical risks in capital markets. Therefore, whether predicting politics is possible is an irrelevant question. The fact is capital markets are constantly pricing geopolitical risk. We believe it is our job to unearth when the market is mispricing these risks. Myth Number 4: ______ (INSERT POLITICIAN NAME) Is Unpredictable Several of our clients have pointed out that trying to forecast President Trump's policies is impossible. He is erratic, emotional, and bound to make gross errors in judgement. Another set of clients believes, with a high conviction, he is a deal-making businessman obsessed with the performance of the equity market. Yet a third group holds both views at the same time! What do we think? Nothing. We have no view on President Trump's preferences. We are indifferent and aloof of them. The fundamental precept of our method is that constraints are the superior predictor of human behavior, rather than preferences. Preferences are optional and subject to constraints. Constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. This is not just a neat mantra we repeat at the onset of every meeting with a prospective client. As Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett discuss in their classic of social psychology, The Person and the Situation, the context and the situation are often more important than the person themselves. In other words, what (if anything) you had for breakfast matters more for whether you were grumpy this morning than your personality traits, education, religion, and usual disposition.12 The policy path of least resistance will be bound by constraints. When faced with rigid and material constraints, predicting policymaker action is easy and our conviction is high. Take the behavior of the Greek leaders in 2015. We had a high conviction view that their political, economic, financial, and geopolitical constraints would force Athens to accept the EU's loan conditionality. In the "Game of Chicken" between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Chancellor Angela Merkel, the former was riding a tricycle, while Frau Merkel was behind the wheel of a Mercedes Benz G-Wagen (Diagram 1). We therefore assigned an extremely low probability of "Grexit" even following the Greek electorate's rejection of bailout conditionality in the June 2015 referendum.13 Diagram 1ARegular Game Of Chicken Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Diagram 1BGreece Versus Euro Area 2015 Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting On the other hand, policymaker optionality increases when constraints are low. Following President Trump's victory in November 2016, we penned a report that correctly forecast the next 18 months of his presidency by purely focusing on what aspects of executive power were poorly bound by constraints.14 We particularly pointed out the U.S. Congress has given up its constitutional power over tariffs through successive legislative acts (Table 2). Table 2Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting When constraints on policymakers are low - as is the case with Trump and protectionism - investors are tempted to fall back on preference-based forecasting. This is folly. Nobody knows what Trump really wants. No private sector institution has the necessary human intelligence (HUMINT) that would produce a statistically significant forecast of President Trump's behavior. As such, when constraints are unclear or low, investors should prepare for volatility at best, downside risks at worst. Myth Number 5: Politicians Are Price Makers The most important constraint to policymakers is the public - particularly in a democracy, but not exclusively. The public can revolt through the ballot box, tweets, or with pitchforks. As such, policymakers drain their political capital by pursuing policies that are not aligned with the "median voter." The "Median Voter Theory" is one of the few genuine theories of political science.15 It argues that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Empirical work since the 1950s has both confirmed and challenged the theory, but the fact that every U.S. presidential election concludes with a mad dash to the "center" proves it has merits. That said, the median voter is not always a centrist. First, there are multiple political issues on which there exists a median voter. The job of a successful politician is to identify the most salient issue of the day and then gauge where the median voter sits on that issue. President Trump successfully identified "the issue" of the 2016 election globalization and where the American median voter sits on the topic. The American median voter is far less supportive of globalization and free trade than was previously assumed (Chart 7). By focusing on trade, President Trump forced his opponent, Secretary Clinton, and subsequently members of his pro-business, pro-free trade, Republican Party, to swing against globalization. Chart 7America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting To this day, investors continue to believe that the median voter will come to the rescue of globalization and free trade. The conventional view is that U.S. voters will revolt once the price of T-shirts, toaster ovens, and toys go up 10-15% at the local Walmart store. We vociferously disagree. The median voter is far less supportive of globalization. And ultimately, it is the median voter who sets the price in the political marketplace, policymakers are merely price takers. As such, investors should focus on the preferences of the median voter as they form the constraint matrix that policymakers have to navigate. Putting It All Together Investment-relevant political analysis is not a science. Data is of varying quality, theory is rarely foolproof, and confidence intervals are wide. However, investing is not a science either. If it were, finance and economics PhDs would be, on average, significantly wealthier than their less educated counterparts in the financial industry (they are not).16 Investors should not throw up their hands and ignore politics altogether just because of the disciplinary limitations of geopolitical analysis. By tweaking some key precepts of political science to fit the necessities of the financial industry, we have developed a set of "best practices" - if not exactly a scientific method - through which we have made geopolitical analysis investment-relevant. Ultimately, the key to sober and investment-relevant geopolitical analysis begins with the right state of mind. The job of an investor is not to predict what should happen or who will emerge victorious. Our job is much simpler: find inefficiencies in the market's pricing of geopolitical events and trends, and generate geopolitical alpha. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Given that the Brexit referendum was a "one off" and without precedent, the margin of error should have been wide to begin with. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see our book review of this seminal work in our February 2014 Monthly Report. Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett, The Person and the Situation - Essential Contributions of Social Psychology, (London: Pinter & Martin, 2011). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 The Median Voter Theory was in fact first posited by economist Harold Hotelling in his 1929 article "Stability in Competition." His en passant comment in an article otherwise focused on business decision-making remains prescient today. Please see "Stability in Competition," Economic Journal 39 (1929), pp. 41-57. For subsequent treatments of the concept in political science, please see Duncan Black, "On The Rationale of Group Decision-Making," Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948), pp. 23-34; and Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper Collins, 1957). 16 Please see The Economist, "Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time," dated December 27, 2016, available at economist.com.

Highlights Systemic, data-driven, political analysis is a "must-have" (and "nice to have" too!); Investment-relevant political analysis has to be data driven; Predicting political outcomes is difficult, but to generate geopolitical alpha investors should focus on "beating the spread," not predicting the match winner; Focus on policymaker constraints, not their preferences; The median voter is the price maker in the political marketplace. Feature Since the launch of our Geopolitical Strategy service in 2012, BCA Research has made a simple proposition to financial professionals: political analysis is a vital tool in the investor toolbox. It may not be the most important tool, or the one used most frequently. But a toolbox without it is incomplete. At this year's BCA Investment Conference - taking place in Toronto from September 23-25 - I will lead a seminar that will introduce the attendees to the method and philosophy the Geopolitical Strategy team employs to generate geopolitical alpha. As an introduction to the seminar, this note focuses on five frequent myths about geopolitical forecasting. Myth Number 1: Getting Geopolitics Right Is A "Nice To Have, Not A Must Have" Some investors remain skeptical about the value of geopolitical analysis. The holdouts most frequently respond with a variation of "this analysis is a nice to have, but it is not a must have." In other words, investment-focused political analysis is seen as ancillary to the investment decision-making process. A tool to be used when an exogenous event threatens one's strategic decisions. Another way to put it is to say "we will call you when something blows up." Table 1Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Please don't. No need. If something does "blow up," just close your eyes and buy risk assets. Table 1 lists the major geopolitical crises since the Second World War. While the average peak-to-trough decline during a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis.1 To illustrate this trend, we have grafted the average S&P 500 return following past geopolitical crises on to the current equity bull market (Chart 1). The picture is encouraging and shows the market often grinds higher even if something does "blow up." BCA's Geopolitical Strategy takes a different approach to political analysis. We seek to understand the market-relevant interplay between global policy decisions. Rather than reacting to things "blowing up," we look to proactively predict the path of fiscal, monetary, and government policy. Take our fundamental view in 2018 that the resynchronization in global growth - the dominant market narrative in 2017 - would be interrupted by de-synchronization between U.S. and Chinese policy. The U.S. economy often dictates global monetary conditions given the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. However, China often influences global fiscal policy given its oversized contribution to global growth (Chart 2). In 2017, we argued with high conviction that U.S. fiscal policy would turn stimulative, thus encouraging the Fed to hike rates at a faster pace than investors expected.2 We also argued that Chinese policymakers would continue to double-down on growth-constraining structural reforms.3 The interplay of these two views would weigh on global growth, supercharge the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world, and pull the U.S. dollar higher (Chart 3). Chart 1Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Chart 2China Makes The World Go Round Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Chart 3Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen We relied minimally on economic data in making this strategic market call. In fact, for much of 2017, economic data was not supporting our out-of-consensus view. There were few indications of a slowdown in China and the U.S. dollar kept facing headwinds. Instead, we relied on a high conviction view that politics would be stimulative to growth in the U.S. and restrictive to Chinese growth.4 This allowed us to: Recommend a high-conviction "Long U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)" view on January 31, 2018 - up 5.90% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Developed Markets Equities / Short Emerging Markets Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 12.09% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Indian Equities / Short Brazilian Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 36.40% since initiation; Recommend that clients overweight U.S. equities relative to Europe and Japan in January 2018; Highlight in April that U.S. equities would face headwinds this summer and investors should be tactically cautious. These views have now become the House View of BCA Research as a whole.5 Prescient political analysis is indeed a "nice to have." Myth Number 2: Political Data Is Useless The second-most frequent claim by geopolitical Luddites is that political data is of poor quality and thus systematic research is impossible. Our favorite two examples of this shortcoming are the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. election, which polls supposedly "got wrong." But the polls did not get Brexit and President Trump's election wrong, the pundits did. If anything, the polls were showing the Brexit camp comfortably ahead throughout June 2016. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16, a week ahead of the vote, that the polls favored the "Stay" vote. But on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%, well within the statistical "margin of error."6 That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit occurring, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% imbued by the betting markets (Chart 4). We made a case for alarm early in 2016 based on a fundamental analysis of the British electorate.7 Chart 4AOnline Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Online Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Online Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 4B... Not The Polls ... Not The Polls ... Not The Polls Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory despite her slim poll lead on the day of the election. What modelers missed is the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for President Obama, and the presence of third-party challengers. We addressed these, as well as Trump's successful "White Hype" strategy, early on in the electoral process.8 The truth is that there is an incredible wealth of political data, but investors are not familiar with it because we have become over-professionalized in our own discipline. Polling agencies, political science academics, non-governmental organizations, all provide investors with an incredible array of historical data. Some of it is of poor quality, some of it is solid. But dismissing it all outright in favor of punditry, op-eds, and the whispers of "wise old men," is folly. More recently we relied on a Pew Research survey that began in 1976 to correctly forecast that there are very few genuine fiscal conservatives in America (Chart 5). This was a critical part of our forecast, last year, that the members of the Freedom Caucus - ideologically allied with the precepts of the Tea Party revolution - would vote in favor of a massively profligate tax cut. In fact, it was Freedom Caucus members who first supported President Trump's plan to pass non-revenue neutral tax cut. Chart 5Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Another notable example is our long-held assertion that the world is multipolar and thus more likely to face paradigm shifts in terms of security and trade policy (Chart 6).9 To drive this point home, we have relied on our Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). To construct our GPI, we enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI), which was originally created by political scientists in 1963 for the Correlates of War project. Chart 6BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Political data is all around us. Just because it is not served on a platter - or accessible on a Bloomberg Terminal - does not make it useless. Myth Number 3: One Cannot Predict Politics In sports betting, gamblers are not trying to predict the outcome of a game. To be a successful gambler, one has to be agnostic to the ultimate winner. In other words, you cannot be a fan and a gambler at the same time. Instead, the goal is to "beat the spread" or choose an "over/under" on the "line" set by the casino. This is precisely what we do for a living. We do not forecast politics. We try to "beat the spread" on political outcomes set by the ultimate bookie, the market. Take our Brexit forecast. In March of 2016, we argued the probability of Brexit was closer to 50% than the 30% that was priced-in by the currency markets. Did we actually forecast that Brexit would happen? No. We argued a week ahead of the vote that Bremain would win a tight referendum. Swing and a miss, right? Wrong. Our clients do not pay us to make political forecasts. They expect us to make market forecasts. We correctly forecasted that the U.K. currency, gilts, and equity markets were not pricing in the higher-than-expected odds of a Brexit outcome. Occasionally both our political and market calls will be correct. For example, we had an extremely high conviction view that Marine Le Pen would not be able to win the French election in 2017.10 The combination of Brexit and the U.S. presidential election had bid up the probability of an anti-establishment outcome in France. Investors were imbuing an extremely erroneous conditional relationship between political outcomes in those two Anglo-Saxon countries and France. But our net assessment, made in early 2016, was that populist outcomes were far more likely in laissez-faire economies than in continental Europe, where expensive social welfare states acted as political social shock absorbers.11 Generating geopolitical alpha is the art of finding overstated and understated geopolitical risks in capital markets. Therefore, whether predicting politics is possible is an irrelevant question. The fact is capital markets are constantly pricing geopolitical risk. We believe it is our job to unearth when the market is mispricing these risks. Myth Number 4: ______ (INSERT POLITICIAN NAME) Is Unpredictable Several of our clients have pointed out that trying to forecast President Trump's policies is impossible. He is erratic, emotional, and bound to make gross errors in judgement. Another set of clients believes, with a high conviction, he is a deal-making businessman obsessed with the performance of the equity market. Yet a third group holds both views at the same time! What do we think? Nothing. We have no view on President Trump's preferences. We are indifferent and aloof of them. The fundamental precept of our method is that constraints are the superior predictor of human behavior, rather than preferences. Preferences are optional and subject to constraints. Constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. This is not just a neat mantra we repeat at the onset of every meeting with a prospective client. As Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett discuss in their classic of social psychology, The Person and the Situation, the context and the situation are often more important than the person themselves. In other words, what (if anything) you had for breakfast matters more for whether you were grumpy this morning than your personality traits, education, religion, and usual disposition.12 The policy path of least resistance will be bound by constraints. When faced with rigid and material constraints, predicting policymaker action is easy and our conviction is high. Take the behavior of the Greek leaders in 2015. We had a high conviction view that their political, economic, financial, and geopolitical constraints would force Athens to accept the EU's loan conditionality. In the "Game of Chicken" between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Chancellor Angela Merkel, the former was riding a tricycle, while Frau Merkel was behind the wheel of a Mercedes Benz G-Wagen (Diagram 1). We therefore assigned an extremely low probability of "Grexit" even following the Greek electorate's rejection of bailout conditionality in the June 2015 referendum.13 Diagram 1ARegular Game Of Chicken Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Diagram 1BGreece Versus Euro Area 2015 Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting On the other hand, policymaker optionality increases when constraints are low. Following President Trump's victory in November 2016, we penned a report that correctly forecast the next 18 months of his presidency by purely focusing on what aspects of executive power were poorly bound by constraints.14 We particularly pointed out the U.S. Congress has given up its constitutional power over tariffs through successive legislative acts (Table 2). Table 2Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting When constraints on policymakers are low - as is the case with Trump and protectionism - investors are tempted to fall back on preference-based forecasting. This is folly. Nobody knows what Trump really wants. No private sector institution has the necessary human intelligence (HUMINT) that would produce a statistically significant forecast of President Trump's behavior. As such, when constraints are unclear or low, investors should prepare for volatility at best, downside risks at worst. Myth Number 5: Politicians Are Price Makers The most important constraint to policymakers is the public - particularly in a democracy, but not exclusively. The public can revolt through the ballot box, tweets, or with pitchforks. As such, policymakers drain their political capital by pursuing policies that are not aligned with the "median voter." The "Median Voter Theory" is one of the few genuine theories of political science.15 It argues that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Empirical work since the 1950s has both confirmed and challenged the theory, but the fact that every U.S. presidential election concludes with a mad dash to the "center" proves it has merits. That said, the median voter is not always a centrist. First, there are multiple political issues on which there exists a median voter. The job of a successful politician is to identify the most salient issue of the day and then gauge where the median voter sits on that issue. President Trump successfully identified "the issue" of the 2016 election globalization and where the American median voter sits on the topic. The American median voter is far less supportive of globalization and free trade than was previously assumed (Chart 7). By focusing on trade, President Trump forced his opponent, Secretary Clinton, and subsequently members of his pro-business, pro-free trade, Republican Party, to swing against globalization. Chart 7America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting To this day, investors continue to believe that the median voter will come to the rescue of globalization and free trade. The conventional view is that U.S. voters will revolt once the price of T-shirts, toaster ovens, and toys go up 10-15% at the local Walmart store. We vociferously disagree. The median voter is far less supportive of globalization. And ultimately, it is the median voter who sets the price in the political marketplace, policymakers are merely price takers. As such, investors should focus on the preferences of the median voter as they form the constraint matrix that policymakers have to navigate. Putting It All Together Investment-relevant political analysis is not a science. Data is of varying quality, theory is rarely foolproof, and confidence intervals are wide. However, investing is not a science either. If it were, finance and economics PhDs would be, on average, significantly wealthier than their less educated counterparts in the financial industry (they are not).16 Investors should not throw up their hands and ignore politics altogether just because of the disciplinary limitations of geopolitical analysis. By tweaking some key precepts of political science to fit the necessities of the financial industry, we have developed a set of "best practices" - if not exactly a scientific method - through which we have made geopolitical analysis investment-relevant. Ultimately, the key to sober and investment-relevant geopolitical analysis begins with the right state of mind. The job of an investor is not to predict what should happen or who will emerge victorious. Our job is much simpler: find inefficiencies in the market's pricing of geopolitical events and trends, and generate geopolitical alpha. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Given that the Brexit referendum was a "one off" and without precedent, the margin of error should have been wide to begin with. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see our book review of this seminal work in our February 2014 Monthly Report. Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett, The Person and the Situation - Essential Contributions of Social Psychology, (London: Pinter & Martin, 2011). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 The Median Voter Theory was in fact first posited by economist Harold Hotelling in his 1929 article "Stability in Competition." His en passant comment in an article otherwise focused on business decision-making remains prescient today. Please see "Stability in Competition," Economic Journal 39 (1929), pp. 41-57. For subsequent treatments of the concept in political science, please see Duncan Black, "On The Rationale of Group Decision-Making," Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948), pp. 23-34; and Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper Collins, 1957). 16 Please see The Economist, "Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time," dated December 27, 2016, available at economist.com.