Global

Highlights Beijing's continued focus on reducing excess industrial capacity in the lead-up to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party will keep iron ore and steel markets buoyant for the balance of the year. The trajectory of prices further out the curve will, however, depend greatly on how quickly China's reflationary policies wane next year. Energy: Overweight. U.S. gasoline inventories could fall by 7-10mm barrels in the first week following the storm (data to be reported today by the EIA), and another 5-10mm barrels (or more) over the next month, depending on how long it takes to restart all of the refineries knocked offline by Hurricane Harvey, according to estimates in BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy. Current gasoline inventories sit about 20 million barrels above the 2011-2015 average, which, based on our calculations, could be completely evaporated within a month, materially changing the U.S. gasoline market and related crack spreads.1 Base Metals: Neutral. Following our analysis last month, we are recommending a tactical short Dec/17 COMEX copper position at tonight's close, expecting the market to correct in line with the fundamentals we highlighted.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. The metal will be supported by low real interest rates and safe-haven demand. The position was recommended May 4, 2017, and is up 8.7%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Another bumper crop is being priced into corn this year. Expectations for higher corn yields this year - ranging from 166.9 bushels/acre (bpa) to 169.2 bpa vs. 169.5 bpa expected by the USDA - will keep prices under pressure. We remain bearish.3 Feature In reaction to Chinese economic and environmental policies, iron ore and steel each rallied by ~78% in 2016. While steel continued its ascent in 2017 - gaining a further ~20% in the year-to-date (ytd), iron ore broke away from this trend and plummeted by more than 40% between mid-February and mid-June (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSteel And Iron Ore Diverged Earlier This Year Steel And Iron Ore Diverged Earlier This Year Steel And Iron Ore Diverged Earlier This Year Although iron ore has since reversed its path and regained most of the loss, the divergence between steel and the ore from which it is produced comes down to a difference in fundamentals. Increased supplies of iron ore at a time of healthy inventories were bearish in H1. On the other hand, closures of both steel capacity as well as coal capacity kept the steel market tight. While China's supply-side policies have been the force behind the strength in both to date, Chinese demand - which accounts for ~50% of global iron ore and steel consumption, and steel production - will take center stage next year. The speed at which China's reflationary policies wane will determine the long-term trajectory of steel and iron ore markets. Granted while there are some early signs of a potential slowdown in China's economy, we do not expect this to hit metals generally in the near term. As Beijing continues its focus on reducing excess capacity in the steel sector, and as policymakers prepare for the 19th National Congress later this year, we expect steel and iron ore to remain buoyant in H2. China's Steel Production Paradox Eliminating Excess Steel Capacity At The Forefront Of Reform Agenda... The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) - China's top economic planning authority - has made clear that reducing overcapacity is at the forefront of its reform priorities. More concretely, Beijing aims to cut steel capacity by up to 100-150mm MT over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020. It has already made progress towards that end - shuttering a reported 65mm MT last year - and is on track to meet its targeted 50mm MT of steel capacity cuts by the end of 2017. Additionally, in January the central government announced its intention to eliminate all steel capacity from intermediate frequency furnaces (IFF) by the end of June 2017. So it is no surprise that steel has been performing so well. However, this narrative is inconsistent with Chinese data. ...Yet Chinese Production Is At All-Time Highs Steel production from China this year has been soaring, growing by more than 5% year-on-year (yoy) in the first seven months of 2017. In fact, latest production data from July came in at 74mm MT, marking a more than 10% yoy increase, and an all-time record high for monthly production (Chart 2). And since ~50% of global steel is produced in China, this has translated into strong global steel production figures in 2017. Production grew by 4.75% yoy in the first seven months of 2017, the most since 2011 and almost five times as much as the five-year average yoy increase for that period. In fact, the China Iron and Steel Association recently announced that the strength in steel prices does not reflect underlying fundamentals and is instead due to speculation and a misunderstanding of the market impact of China's policies. In an effort to deter speculation, China's commodity exchanges implemented several restrictions in August, including increasing margins on futures contracts and limiting positions (Chart 3).4 Chart 2Record Steel Production##BR##Amid Chinese Capacity Cuts Record Steel Production Amid Chinese Capacity Cuts Record Steel Production Amid Chinese Capacity Cuts Chart 3Pure Speculation Or Not?##BR##Beijing Cracking Down On Market Speculation Pure Speculation Or Not? Beijing Cracking Down On Market Speculation Pure Speculation Or Not? Beijing Cracking Down On Market Speculation It Comes Down To The Nature Of IFFs This paradox of record high production at a time of capacity closures comes down to the nature of IFF capacity that was shutdown. While for the most part, old, outdated and unproductive facilities were targeted for closure last year, the shift in focus towards IFFs had a different effect on the market in 2017. IFFs use scrap steel, rather than iron ore, as a raw material, which is melted through an induction furnace to produce low-quality steel. Because this steel fails to meet government specifications for high-quality steel, it is considered "illegal" and, although it is used to satisfy steel demand, it is not included in official production data. Thus, efforts to shut-down these producers are not evident in China's production figures. However, IFF steelmaking capacity is estimated to be 80-120mm MT a year, and accounts for ~10% of steel production capacity in China. In terms of output, this substandard steel accounts for almost 4% of Chinese production. Thus, traditional steelmaking facilities have been required to fill the supply void caused by IFF closures, raising the official production figures. Steel Exports Take A U-Turn As "Illegal" Capacity Is Shuttered Moreover, Chinese exports have reversed their trend and are on the decline. Steel exports registered a ~30% yoy fall in the first seven months of this year (Chart 4). This is further evidence that the capacity closures have had a real impact on actual steel production, and that domestic consumers have turned to steel that is typically exported, in order to fulfill their demand for the metal. Furthermore, as authorities crack down on IFFs, demand for scrap steel - the main raw material in IFFs - has declined. Amid waning demand, scrap steel prices fell by 9% in H1 before regaining almost 6% in July. This follows a ~70% rally last year (Chart 5). Chart 4Exports Are Down As##BR##Capacity Is Shutdown Exports Are Down As Capacity Is Shutdown Exports Are Down As Capacity Is Shutdown Chart 5Scrap Steel Rally Takes A Break##BR##As Demand From IFFs Eliminated Scrap Steel Rally Takes A Break As Demand From IFFs Eliminated Scrap Steel Rally Takes A Break As Demand From IFFs Eliminated Coking Coal Cost Push As part of its environmental protection plans, China's policymakers announced plans to replace 800mm MT of outdated coal mining capacity with 500mm MT of "advanced" capacity by 2020. Last year, coal-mining capacity closures exceeded the 250mm MT target, reversing the slump in coal prices and leading an almost 225% rally in coke futures. Coking coal, or metallurgical coal, is a key ingredient in the steelmaking process. Although coke dipped since its December high, it has rallied by 34% in the past two months. Thus, Chinese steel mills are now producing in an environment of higher input costs, which will translate to higher prices for the finished good. China's Capacity Closures Likely Peaked Given that China has set June 30, 2017 as the target for eliminating induction furnace-based steelmaking, we do not expect IFF shutdowns to continue impacting the steel market. Additionally, while excess steel capacity is conventionally estimated to be 325-350mm MT in China, the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) argues that this estimate does not account for the need for a certain amount of excess capacity. Instead, they cite 130mm MT as a more reasonable figure of Chinese excess steel capacity. According to PIIE estimates, this means that by the end of the year, China will have eliminated almost all of its excess capacity, and will be very close to the quantity of capacity closures it aims to achieve by 2020. Consequently, we do not expect shutdowns to continue driving up steel prices. However, plans to halve blast-furnace production at Northern China mills to reduce pollution during the winter will weigh on near term Chinese production and the steel market. Bottom Line: Chinese authorities are closing in on their targeted capacity shutdowns. We do not expect this reduction in capacity to continue impacting steel markets in the long term. Near-term supply dynamics will be driven by efforts to reduce winter pollution. IFF Closures Spur Demand For Iron Ore Chart 6Mid-Year China Inventories At Record High Mid-Year China Inventories At Record High Mid-Year China Inventories At Record High With the elimination of IFFs, which take in scrap steel as the main input, we expect greater demand for iron ore from traditional steel mills as they work toward filling the supply gap left by the loss of the so-called illegal steel. While steel prices have been on a consistent uptrend since 2016, iron ore - which usually moves in tandem with steel - diverged from its main demand market earlier this year, before resuming its rally in Q2. The deviation earlier this year was due to increased supplies from Australia and Brazil amid record levels of Chinese inventories (Chart 6). This has reversed, and iron ore has resumed its climb. Stronger demand for iron ore is consistent with import data, which shows that China has been hungry for Australian and Brazilian iron ore. However, since the average iron ore production cost in China - estimated at more than 60 USD/MT, or roughly three (3) times the cost of iron-ore production in Brazil and Australia - is greater than in other regions, many Chinese mines go offline during periods of low prices. By the same token, elevated prices tempt high-cost Chinese producers back online, increasing global supply. Bottom Line: Since the closure of induction furnaces has shored up demand for iron ore, pulling prices up with it, we do not anticipate further drops in prices. However, if prices remain elevated, increased production from China amid well stocked global markets will keep a tight lid on iron ore prices. Chinese Appetite Will Determine Long-Run Market Performance While steel and iron ore are currently well supported, their near term strength is in large part due to China's reflation policies which have revived demand. Given that it is a sensitive political year, we do not foresee downturns in the Chinese economy this year. Authorities will want to go into the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party in mid-October with solid economic data as a backdrop. However, waning Chinese growth would be a long-run negative for the markets (Chart 7). Specifically, official government data indicate: 1. There are early warning signs that the property market in China may be losing momentum. New floor space started, and new floor space completed contracted in July, while growth in floor space under construction and floor space sold have been easing. Furthermore, while total real estate investment has been growing at an average monthly rate of almost 9% yoy since the beginning of the year, July figures show a marked slowdown, at less than 5% yoy growth. We would not be surprised to see the property market winding down as China begins to tighten its real estate policies. 2. Chinese automobile production has slowed significantly from all-time highs recorded at the end of last year. The monthly average 4% yoy growth in the five months to July is a significant deceleration from the 10% yoy average witnessed during the same period last year. 3. However, infrastructure investment has been strong, recording its all-time high in June, and a 20% yoy increase in July. With the National Congress scheduled in October, we do not expect a slowdown in infrastructure spending this year. In addition, August manufacturing PMI data in China came in above expectations, and registered a slight increase from the previous month (Chart 8). The index has remained relatively stable since the beginning of the year, after gaining strength last year. Chart 7Despite Signs Of Fizzling,##BR##Slowdown Not Expected In 2017 Despite Signs Of Fizzling, Slowdown Not Expected In 2017 Despite Signs Of Fizzling, Slowdown Not Expected In 2017 Chart 8Accomodative Policies Will##BR##Keep Near Term Demand Solid Accomodative Policies Will Keep Near Term Demand Solid Accomodative Policies Will Keep Near Term Demand Solid Bottom Line: Although we expect China's appetite for steel will begin to wane as the economy unravels from its reflationary policies, steel demand will remain strong in 2017. Chinese authorities will want to ensure solid growth in the run-up to the National Congress scheduled for mid-October. Thus, the near-term focus will remain on supply, and the impact of its reforms on ferrous metals. Post-Harvey Rebuilding Will Spur Steel Demand Hurricane Harvey is expected to impact steel markets in three main ways: 30-35% of all U.S. steel imports come through Port Houston. However, the port resumed operations as of September 1 and there is no longer a threat posed on steel imports. The disruption in freight service resulting from Harvey is expected to temporarily push up trucking rates in the next few weeks. This will give U.S. steel firms, which have long been suffering from cheaper Chinese imports, an advantage and opportunity to fill the demand void which will be bullish for U.S. steel. Harvey will have a longer-run positive impact on steel markets through the demand that will be generated from the infrastructure rebuilding process. Still, increased demand for steel will be partially mitigated by a rise in scrap steel supply, in the aftermath of destruction. While it is still too early to measure the extent of damage and the impact of the rebuilding process on steel markets, estimates from the storm's damage run as high as USD 120 billion. Texas's governor estimated the damage to be much greater - between USD 150-180 billion. This compares to USD 110 billion from Hurricane Katrina, the most devastating storm to hit the U.S. prior to Harvey. Bottom Line: While it is still too early to determine the full extent of destruction, the infrastructure rebuilding phase will spur demand for steel. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Upgrading Refining Sector As Harvey Clears Out Inventories," published September 6, 2017 It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," published August 24, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "GRAINS - Corn lower as U.S. yield forecasts rise; soy, wheat climb," published by reuters.com on September 1, 2017. 4 Please see "Shanghai exchange urges steel investors to act rationally, hikes fees" published by reuters.com on August 11, 2017. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018 Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018 Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Feature Dear Client, In addition to this abbreviated Weekly Report, I am sending you a Special Report written by Mark McClellan, Managing Editor of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. Mark makes a compelling case that the deflationary effects of the "Amazon economy" are overstated. I trust you will find his report very informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Chart 1September Is Generally ##br##Not A Good Time Of Year For Stocks Sticking With Bullish ... For Now Sticking With Bullish ... For Now My colleagues and I convened a meeting earlier this week to discuss whether to abandon our long-standing cyclically bullish view towards risk assets. Several of them felt it was time to turn more cautious. I am sympathetic to their concerns: Valuations are stretched, volatility is low, and geopolitical risks (most notably North Korea) are on the rise. Profit growth is likely to decelerate later this year, as the easy comps stemming from the depressed level of earnings in the first half of 2016 vanish. Meanwhile, stocks are entering the volatile early autumn months, a period which has historically seen poor returns (Chart 1). Nevertheless, at times like these, it is useful to fall back on our time-tested indicators. Bear markets have almost always coincided with economic recessions, with the latter usually causing the former (Chart 2). None of our recession-timing signals are flashing red: To cite just a few examples, ISM manufacturing new orders are strong, initial unemployment claims are low, core capital goods orders are accelerating, and the yield curve is not in any immediate risk of inverting (Chart 3). Chart 2Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 3No Warnings Of Recession Here No Warnings Of Recession Here No Warnings Of Recession Here U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year, which should support growth over the next few quarters (Chart 4). A recent IMF report highlighted that easier U.S. financial conditions tend to generate positive spillovers onto other countries.1 The fact that all 45 countries monitored by the OECD are on track to grow this year - the first time this has happened since 2007 - is a testament to the strong fundamentals underpinning the global economy. Chart 4Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Growth Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Growth Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Growth The Fed's Dot Problem In this light, the Fed's projection that the unemployment rate will end this year at 4.3% and only fall to 4.2% by end-2018 no longer looks credible. If U.S. GDP growth remains above trend, as we expect, the unemployment rate could fall below its 2000 low of 3.8% by next summer. That will be enough to prompt investors to price in a few more rate hikes. Considering that the market expects just 22 basis points in hikes through to end-2018, this is not a high bar to clear. A bit more fiscal stimulus would add to the pressure to tighten monetary policy. While any meaningful progress on tax reform will be difficult to achieve, the odds are good that Congress will agree to cut statutory corporate and personal tax rates, with the latter focusing mainly on middle-income earners. Failure to raise the debt ceiling or extend federal spending authority beyond the current budget window could scuttle the benefits from lower tax rates. Fortunately, the risks of such an outcome have receded. If there is a silver lining from Hurricane Harvey, it is that the disaster could at least temporarily overcome the political impasse in Washington. Congress will need to appropriate additional disaster relief funds over the coming weeks. Politicians who are seen as creating roadblocks to such funding will face the electorate's wrath. The odds of an infrastructure bill passing through Congress have also risen. All recoveries eventually run out of steam, but this one can last at least until the second half of 2019, which will make it the longest U.S. expansion on record. As we discussed several weeks ago, the next recession is likely to be triggered by the Fed scrambling to hike rates in response to rising inflation.2 This is not an immediate concern, given that it usually takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation - especially since the U.S. currently can satisfy rising domestic demand with higher imports. However, the risks of overheating will increase as unemployment falls further and excess capacity elsewhere in the world is absorbed. Draghi After Jackson Hole Chart 5A Stronger Euro Is Deflationary A Stronger Euro Is Deflationary A Stronger Euro Is Deflationary Textbook economic theory states that a shift in consumption towards imported goods requires a real appreciation of the currency. The dollar, of course, has done exactly the opposite of that, depreciating by 6.6% in trade-weighted terms since the start of the year. The euro, in particular, has gained significant ground against the greenback, rising above $1.20 at one point this week. Mario Draghi's failure to express concerns about the resurgent euro during his Jackson Hole address was construed by many market participants as a green light for further currency strength. We are skeptical of this "saying nothing means you are saying something" interpretation. Draghi wanted to acknowledge (and partly take credit for) the recovery across the euro area, but he is cognizant of the problems posed by a stronger euro. The ECB's June forecast showed inflation rising to only 1.6% in 2019. In the period since those forecasts were compiled, the trade-weighted euro has appreciated by 3.9%, bringing the year-to-date gain to 6.2% (Chart 5). ECB staff calculations, which Draghi has approvingly quoted, show that a 10% appreciation in the euro would reduce inflation by 0.2 percentage points in the first year and 0.6-to-0.8 points in the subsequent two years.3 Better-than-expected growth since the June forecasts will offset some of the deflationary impact from the stronger euro, but probably not by much, given that the Phillips curve is quite flat at high-to-moderate levels of spare capacity. With labor market slack across the euro area still 3.2 percentage points higher today than in 2008 (and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany), it will be a while before stronger growth generates markedly higher inflation. We expect the ECB to reduce its 2018/2019 inflation forecast by 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points next week. It would be awkward for the central bank to play up the prospect of monetary policy normalization while it is simultaneously trimming its inflation projections. This suggests that the ECB's communications could turn more dovish, thereby limiting further upside for the euro. EUR/USD is currently trading near the top of the $1.10-to-$1.20 range that we foresee lasting for the next 10 months. Thus, our expectation is that the euro will weaken over the next few months, ending the year near $1.15, and potentially moving back towards its 2017 lows in the second half of next year, as an overheated U.S. economy forces the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Getting The Policy Mix Right," IMF Global Financial Stability Report, (Chapter 3), (April 2017). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery to Retro-Recession?" dated August 18, 2017. 3 Please see European Central Bank, "March 2017 ECB Staff Macroeconomic Projections For The Euro Area." APPENDIX 1 Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. At present, these models favor global equities over bonds over a three-month horizon (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Sticking With Bullish ... For Now Sticking With Bullish ... For Now Our business cycle equity indicators remain in bullish territory, as reflected in strong global growth and rising corporate earnings. Our monetary and financial indicators are also generally supportive. In contrast, our sentiment readings are sending mixed signals. On the one hand, implied equity volatility remains low and institutional exposure to stocks is quite high. On the other hand, surveys of retail investors show a healthy skepticism towards the bull market, which is a positive contrarian indicator. As has been the case for some time, our valuation measures are signaling that stocks are expensive, but these are typically useful only over horizons beyond one or two years. As we flagged last month, stocks tend to do poorly in August and September, which may hurt returns over the next few weeks. The stronger euro will negatively impact earnings in the euro area. This has caused our models to suggest a slight downgrade to European equities. However, we are inclined to fade this signal, given our expectation that the euro will give up some of its recent gains. Japanese stocks continue to score well on our metrics, buoyed by strengthening corporate profits and attractive valuations. Emerging market equities are fairly valued, although China still appears cheap. The rally in U.S. Treasurys has caused the gap between the 10-year yield and our model's fair value estimate to widen to around 50 basis points, the highest since last September. European and Japanese bonds also look somewhat overvalued, although the latter will continue to receive support from the BoJ's yield curve targeting operations. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 30th, 2017. The model has continued to reduce its allocation to the U.S. driven by worsening liquidity condition, and it's the second consecutive month that the U.S. allocation is the largest underweight. Australia is downgraded to neutral on concern of valuation. Germany and Netherland continued to receive more allocation and Canada's underweight is reduced as well, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 18 bps in August, entirely due to the 43 bps outperformance of Level 2 model where the overweight in Italy and Germany versus the underweight in Japan, Spain and Canada worked very well. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of August 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates The model is optimistic on global growth and maintains in cyclical tilt. However, the magnitude of overweight in cyclical sectors has reduced on the back of momentum indicators. The biggest change has been utilities which has moved from a 2% underweight to a 1.7% overweight. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Feature Shrugging Off The Political Noise All the political noise of August (White House resignations, Charlottesville, North Korean missile launches, the looming U.S. debt ceiling) could do no more than trigger a minor market wobble: at the worst point, global equities were off only 2% from their all-time high. The reason is that global cyclical growth remains strong, earnings are accelerating, and central banks have no immediate need to turn hawkish. In such an environment, risk assets should continue to outperform over the next 12 months. The political risks will not disappear (and will no doubt produce further hair-raising moments), but they are unlikely to have a decisive impact on markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists think eventually there will be a diplomatic solution to the North Korean situation - albeit only after a significant further rise in tension forces the two sides to the negotiating table.1 It is hard to imagine the debt ceiling not being raised, since Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and they would be blamed for any disruption caused by a failure to raise it. Recent personnel changes in the White House have left - for now - a more pragmatic "Goldman Sachs clique" in charge. We believe there is still a reasonable likelihood of tax cuts, not least since the Republicans are on track to lose a lot of seats in next year's mid-term elections unless they can boost the administration's popularity (Chart 1). Recent growth data has been decent. U.S. Q2 GDP growth was revised up to 3% QoQ annualized, and the regional Fed NowCasts point to 1.9-3.4% growth in Q3. If anything, growth momentum in the euro area (2.4% in Q2) and Japan (4%) is even better. Corporate earnings growth continues to accelerate too, with S&P 500 EPS growth in the second quarter coming in at 10% YoY, compared to a forecast of just 6% before the results season started. BCA's models suggest that, in all regions, earnings growth is likely to continue to accelerate for a couple more quarters (Chart 2). Chart 1Republicans Need A Popularity Boost Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 2Earnings Continue To Accelerate Earnings Continue To Accelerate Earnings Continue To Accelerate The outlook for the dollar remains the key to asset allocation. The market currently assumes that the dollar will weaken further, as U.S. inflation stays low and the Fed, therefore, stays on hold. Futures markets currently price only a 38% probability of a Fed hike in December, and only 25 BP of hikes over the next 12 months. If markets are right, this scenario would be positive for emerging market equities and commodity currencies, and would mean that long-term rates would be likely to stay low, around current levels. But we think that assumption is wrong. Diffusion indexes for core inflation have begun to pick up (Chart 3). The tight labor market should start to push up wages, dollar deprecation is already coming through in the form of rising import prices, and some transitory factors (pre-election drugs price rises, for example) will fall out of the data soon. The Fed is clearly nervous that it has fallen behind the curve, especially since financial conditions have recently eased significantly (Chart 4). A moderate stabilization of inflation by December would be enough to push the Fed to hike again - and to reiterate its plan to raise rates three times next year. Chart 3Inflation To Pick Up? Inflation To Pick Up? Inflation To Pick Up? Chart 4Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Meanwhile, long-term interest rates in developed economies look too low given growth prospects (Chart 5). As inflation picks up, the Fed talks more hawkishly, and the dollar begins to appreciate again, rates are likely to move up in the U.S. and in the euro zone. Our view, then, is that the Fed will tighten faster than the market expects, long-term rates will rise and the dollar will appreciate. Equities might wobble initially as they price in the tighter monetary policy but, as long as growth continues to be strong, should outperform bonds on a 12-month basis. Our scenario would be positive for euro zone and Japanese equities, but somewhat negative for EM equities. Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM. Emerging equities have been boosted over the past 12 months by the weaker dollar and Chinese reflation. With the dollar likely to appreciate (for the reasons argued above), and a slowdown in Chinese money supply growth pointing to slower growth in that economy (Chart 6), we think EM equities will struggle over coming quarters. Meanwhile, there is little sign that domestic growth momentum is improving in emerging economies (Chart 7). Within DM, our underlying preference is for euro zone and Japanese equities. Our quants model now points to an underweight for the U.S. We haven't implemented this yet because 1) of our view that the USD will strengthen, and 2) we prefer not to make too frequent changes to recommendations. We will review this in our next Quarterly. Chart 5Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Chart 6Slowing Chinese Money Growth Is A Risk For EM bca.gaa_mu_2017_09_01_c6 bca.gaa_mu_2017_09_01_c6 Chart 7EM Domestic Growth Anemic EM Domestic Growth Anemic EM Domestic Growth Anemic Text below Fixed Income: BCA's model of fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (the model incorporates the Global Manufacturing PMI and USD bullish sentiment) points to 2.6%, almost 50 BP above the current level (Chart 8). We therefore expect G7 government bonds to produce a negative return over the next 12 months, as inflation expectations rise and monetary policy continues to "normalize". We still find some attraction in spread product, especially in the U.S. (Chart 9). While spreads are quite low compared to history, U.S. high-yield spreads remain 119 BP above historic lows, while euro area ones are only 65 BP above. Chart 8U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% Chart 9Credit Spreads Not At Record Lows Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Currencies: The euro has likely overshot. Long speculative positions are close to record levels (Chart 10) and the currency has returned to its Purchasing Power Parity level against the USD (Chart 11). An announcement of a "dovish" tapering of asset purchases by ECB President Draghi in September could persuade the market that the ECB will continue to be much more cautious about tightening than the Fed. The yen is also likely to weaken against the US dollar as global rates rise, since the BoJ will not change its yield curve control policy despite the better recent growth numbers, given how far inflation is still from its target. Chart 10There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls Chart 11Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Commodities: Our forecast that a drawdown in crude inventories will push the WTI price back up is slowing coming about. U.S. crude inventories have fallen by 25.3 million barrels since the start of the year. The after-effects of Hurricane Harvey might affect the data for a while but, as long as global demand holds up, the crude oil price should rise further, with WTI moving over $55 a barrel by year-end. Metals prices have moved largely sideways year to date, and future movements depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese growth, which may begin to slow. In particular, the recent run-up in copper prices (which have risen by 20% since early June) seems unsustainable. The bullish sentiment was mostly due to short-term supply/demand imbalances caused by labor disruptions at some major mines. However, Chinese copper demand, especially for construction, is likely to weaken over coming months.2 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market," dated 16 August 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated 24 August 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights Copper's impressive rally leaves prices out in front of fundamentals. We are expecting a correction going forward, given our view that reduced mine output results from transitory disruptions, and China's growth appears to be stalling: industrial output, investment, retail sales, and trade all grew less than expected last month. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain fairly well supported this week on signs U.S. production growth may not be as strong as expected, and continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 keeps global inventories from building too rapidly. We remain long Brent and WTI $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Dec/17, which are up 99.1% and 18.9%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper prices appear to be getting out ahead of fundamentals, particularly as regards Chinese demand, which could stall on the back of slower economic growth. Precious Metals: Neutral. In line with our House view, we expect the Fed to remain dovish on the inflation front, which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. This means real rates remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We remain bearish, although we are not aggressively shorting any of the ags. Feature Chart of the WeekCopper 2017H1: Exceptional Performance Copper 2017H1: Exceptional Performance Copper 2017H1: Exceptional Performance Copper futures traded on COMEX rallied by almost 10% from the beginning of May, when spot was trading just under $2.50/lb, until late July, then shot up by an additional 9% on news of a potential ban on scrap imports by China; 4% of that increase was recorded on July 25 alone (Chart of the Week). Spot copper settled at $2.9865/lb Tuesday. Part of this rally can be put down to a renewed focus on China's environmental policies, which we expect to continue following the 19th National Congress of China's Communist Party later this year, and the better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy in 2017H1. This occurred as supply side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines caused markets to discount possible near-term shortages, along with rumors of an import ban on so-called Category 7 scrap metals. These stories supercharged the copper market. Supply/Demand Imbalances Are Transitory While labor-related disruptions at major copper mines led to a production cutback in 2017H1, supply has, for the most part, recovered. Furthermore, these are one-off events that we do not foresee persisting or having a lasting impact on markets.1 Production of copper ores and concentrates fell a negligible 0.1% year-on-year (yoy) in H1, following a 6.7% yoy increase in global output in 2016. Year-to-date (ytd) production growth lies significantly below the 5.63% average for the same period 2013-2016 (Chart 2). Similarly, in a marked slowdown from the four-year average growth of ~ 4% yoy in refined copper production, output remained largely unchanged in the first 4 months of 2017 compared to last year. However, there is evidence of relief in May and June, which registered a 6.08% yoy increase in output. The slowdown in production is mainly driven by supply-side shocks at some of the world's largest mines in Chile, Peru, and Indonesia. Contract Renegotiations and Weather Disruptions in Chile: The respective 1% and 6.6% yoy fall in global ores and concentrates output in February and March can be attributed to a corresponding year-on-year 17% and 23% declines in production from Chile - the world's leading copper producer. At BHP Billiton's Escondida mine, the world's largest, 2,500 workers staged a 43-day strike over contract renegotiations, which ended without resolution in late March. Although the end of the strike has brought relief to copper output, talks will resume in 18 months, raising the possibility of another strike - and an accompanying production cut - in a year's time. However, President Marcelo Castillo has somewhat calmed these worries, expressing his intent to revise the mine's operating model so that it will be minimally impacted by such disputes in the future. The decline in Chilean output was compounded by heavy snow and rain in May, which forced the Caserones mine to halt production for three weeks. This was reflected in a ~ 1.7% yoy decline in national output in May. Caserones has since resumed production and is now reported to have reached 90% of capacity. Nationwide Strikes in Peru Not Expected to Show up in July Data: Labor reforms proposed at the end of July led to a three-day walk-out by unionized workers across Peru. The strike impacted operations at major deposits including Antamina, Cerro Verde, Cuajone among others. However, according to the National Society of Mining, Petroleum and Energy, absenteeism was insignificant and the impact on copper output was limited. This followed a five-day strike at Cerro Verde - Peru's second largest mine - in March due to dissatisfaction with labor conditions. Peru ramped up output by almost 25% in 2015, surpassing China as the second largest producer of copper, and accounted for 11.4% of global output in 2016. Dispute Over Export Rights and Worker Dissatisfaction at Grasberg: In an effort to promote its domestic smelting industry, Indonesian authorities imposed a temporary ban on exports of copper concentrates in January. However, in April, Freeport McMoRan was granted an eight-month license to resume exports from its Grasberg mine - the second largest in the world. Furthermore, CEO Richard Adkerson expressed confidence that Freeport will succeed in securing an agreement by October, allowing it to implement a major multi-billion-dollar underground mine development plan. Labor unrest remains a problem for the company, nonetheless. Angered by redundancies and enforced furloughs, a strike by 5,000 workers was extended for a fourth month, until the end of August. Output data until May shows production remained largely unchanged compared to last year and follows a 3.82% yoy increase in Q1. Indonesian output accounted for 3% of global copper production in 2016. This will have to be resolved for the company's development plans to proceed unchallenged. Despite these supply-side shocks and ensuing Q2 inventory draw, copper remains well stocked at the major warehouses (Chart 3). Furthermore, COMEX inventories are at their highest level since 2004. As long as the global market remains well stocked, we expect it will be capable of withstanding volatility induced by labor markets and government policy with minimal impacts on prices. Chart 2Supply Disruptions Subsiding,##BR##Copper Market Back In Balance Supply Disruptions Subsiding, Copper Market Back in Balance Supply Disruptions Subsiding, Copper Market Back in Balance Chart 3Copper Inventories##BR##Can Withstand Volatility Copper Inventories Can Withstand Volatility Copper Inventories Can Withstand Volatility Scrap Imports Kick In Amidst Elevated Prices Chart 4China Copper Demand Weakening China Copper Demand Weakening China Copper Demand Weakening A dip in Chinese demand was also partly to blame for the minimal impact of the production cutbacks on inventories. Chinese consumption single-handedly makes up ~ 50% of global copper demand. The 1.46% yoy decline in global refined copper consumption during 2017H1 is, in large part, due to a 4.57% yoy drop in Chinese consumption (Chart 4). In fact, consumption during February and April fell 10% and 11%, respectively. Weak demand is also evident in China's import of copper ores and concentrates data. Although imports grew by 2.72% yoy in 2017H1, this is a marked slowdown from the 33.66% growth rate witnessed during the same period last year, and the average H1 growth of 22.6% since 2012. Similarly, China's imports of refined copper, copper alloy, and products fell 18.32% yoy in 2017H1 before increasing by 8.33% yoy last month. However, it appears that scrap copper may have helped fill the void - China's imports of copper scraps and wastes increased by 18.56% in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. This marks a turning point in the trend, as copper scrap imports have been on the decline since 2013, and is likely a direct result of speculation over the impact of China's environmental policies on base metals. China's Scrap Import Ban: Overplayed Last week, China confirmed intentions to ban some forms of scrap copper imports beginning as early as the end of the year. This is part of measures taken to support sustainable growth and environmental protection. While rumors swirled in late July suggesting "Category 7" (i.e. old) scrap copper would be included in the import ban, the list of banned waste imports released last week by the Ministry of Environmental protection did not include copper. However, copper scrap from automobiles, ships and electronic devices were included in a "limited import" category, with no further details of the import constraints to be imposed on these products. Scrap impacts the copper market in two main ways: It provides smelter-refineries an alternative input, in addition to ores and concentrates, thus enhancing total refined copper supply. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates global production of refined copper increased by 2% in January due to increased production from scrap, which rose by 13% yoy. It acts as a substitute for refined copper, providing first-stage manufacturers a lower-cost alternative input. This means that when prices are up, as they have been since late 2016, the impact on refined copper production is somewhat muted because scrap usage kicks in (Chart 5). Furthermore, because of this response, the effect of supply-side shocks on refined copper output are - to some extent - restrained. Chart 5Scrap Imports Kick In When Prices Are Up Scrap Imports Kick In When Prices Are Up Scrap Imports Kick In When Prices Are Up This explains why the market has been in somewhat of a frenzy since late July after hearing that the Chinese authorities will likely implement an import ban on some types of scrap copper, which caused copper prices to jump to levels last seen in 2015Q2. Copper futures traded on COMEX have rallied by 10% from the beginning of May to late July, then shot up an additional 9% on rumors of an import ban; 4% of that increase was recorded on July 25 alone. Markets are clearly buying into the news, and are optimistic the ban will hike demand for other forms of copper. However, we believe this optimism is unfounded, and that the impact on copper markets is overplayed. Although the ICSG estimates that ~ 30% of annual copper usage comes from 'secondary' or recycled sources, a much smaller ratio originates from 'old' scrap copper. This type of scrap is derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars, and industrial products. While data on old-scrap copper supply is not readily available, researchers at Antaike estimated that out of the 3.35mm MT of scrap copper imports in 2016, old-scrap copper imports made up ~ 0.3mm MT of copper-equivalent. This accounts for a very small fraction of China's 17.05mm MT of imports of copper ores and concentrates and 4.94mm MT imports of refined copper last year. Thus, even if a ban on all old-scrap copper were to materialize, we do not believe it will create a supply deficit, or even threaten one. In addition, there has been speculation that a ban would reroute old scrap metal to other countries for dismantling and processing before being imported by China, diminishing its impact on the copper market. Given that the market's reaction to news of the ban has been favorable, we expect to see a correction as the market responds to information that the ban is less bullish than expected. Chinese Demand Will Ease As Tailwinds Die Down In 2017H1, China surprised with better-than-expected economic performance, which supported copper prices. China's infrastructure and equipment industries are especially important to the copper market, consuming, respectively, 43% and 19% of the red metal domestically. However, as our colleagues on BCA Research's China desk foresaw, recent data gives some early-warning signs of a slowdown in growth.2 Industrial output, investment and retail sales figures came in below expectations amid a cooling property market. Furthermore, restrictions on riskier types of lending will continue slowing credit growth going forward. The property market - residential and commercial construction - accounts for ~ one-third of copper consumption. After reaching three-year highs late last year, the official manufacturing PMI and the Keqiang index - both used as key measures of the state of China's economy - show evidence that the economy is stabilizing (Chart 6). In fact, the Keqiang index has come down significantly from its peak earlier this year. In particular, signs of cooling in China's property sector are playing into the possibility of weaker industrial metals generally. Steel-making commodities and base metals have been in high demand ever since China relaxed housing policies, reviving the property market. However, in an effort to cool this market, Chinese authorities announced measures to raise down payments and control speculative buying in 20 cities last September. These measures are beginning to show up in property-market construction and sales data (Chart 7). Chart 6Early Warning Signs Of China Slowdown Early Warning Signs of China Slowdown Early Warning Signs of China Slowdown Chart 7China Property Sector: Cooling China Property Sector: Cooling China Property Sector: Cooling New floor space started contracted by almost 5% yoy in July, potentially signaling early warning signs of what could come ahead. It marks a reversal of a 10.55% expansion in 2017H1. New floor space completed declined in July, registering a 13.54% fall yoy. This follows 5% growth in 2017H1 - a marked slowdown from the 20.05% pace of growth in 2016H1. Furthermore, floor space under construction has been steadily easing, growing just 3.17% yoy in July. In terms of floor space sold, July's yoy growth of 2% follows a 21.37% yoy growth rate in June, and marks a pronounced slowdown from the 15.82% average yoy growth rate in 2017H1. Chart 8China's Economic Structure##BR##Deviates From Trend China's Economic Structure Deviates From Trend China's Economic Structure Deviates From Trend While near term growth does not appear to be threatened, earlier this month the IMF warned against China's "reliance on stimulus to meet targets," and a "credit expansion path that may be dangerous," which could cause a medium-term adjustment. When this eventually weighs down on industrial activity - as we expect - it will reverberate throughout the economy, discouraging investment projects, and eventually taking its toll on commodities generally, base metals in particular. Even so, in a small change of pace, China's share of secondary sector (i.e. manufacturing) as a percent of GDP crept up in July (Chart 8). This is a deviation from the trend in the evolving structure of China's economy, where the tertiary sector (services) has been making up an increasing share of GDP. While it is still too early to determine whether this is the beginning of a change in trend, or a one-off case, this development is positive for metals short term, since manufacturing activity is industrial-metal intensive. Bottom Line: We expect a correction in copper prices near term, as markets adjust to revelations that the market impact of China's environmental policies is less than expected. Our longer-term outlook is neutral: The synchronized economic upturn in global demand will partially offset waning economic activity in China, as tailwinds from accelerating export growth and easing monetary conditions die down. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 We discuss some of these developments during 2017Q1 in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Price Supports Are Fading," published by March 23, 2017. It is available at ces.bacresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Strong corporate earnings growth will drown out worries about North Korea. Stay cyclically overweight global equities. Underlying wage growth in the U.S. is stronger than the official data suggest. Surveys point to a further acceleration in U.S. wages, as do pay gains at the lower end of the income distribution. Labor's share of income will resume its cyclical recovery. This will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher price inflation. Wage growth elsewhere in the world will also pick up as labor slack declines. Global fixed-income investors should underweight duration and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Feature Focus On Corporate Earnings, Not Korea Chart 1EPS Estimates Have Remained ##br##Resilient This Year EPS Estimates Have Remained Resilient This Year EPS Estimates Have Remained Resilient This Year Global equities dropped over the past few days on the back of rising risks of conflict in the Korean peninsula. Our geopolitical strategists believe that neither the U.S. nor North Korea will launch a preemptive strike.1 Despite its bluster, North Korea has a history of rational action. It wants a nuclear deterrent and a peace treaty. The U.S. has forsworn regime change as a policy goal. China has recommitted to new sanctions and the South is pro-engagement. This raises the likelihood that a diplomatic solution will be found. Unfortunately, getting from here (open hostilities) to there (negotiated solution) will take time, which leaves the door open to increased market volatility. Nevertheless, we expect any selloff to be short-lived, owing to the positive earnings picture. More than anything else, strong profit growth has underpinned the cyclical bull market in stocks, and we expect this to remain the case over the coming months. More than 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported Q2 results. Based on these preliminary numbers, EPS appears to have increased by 11% over the previous year, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of margin expansion. The strength has been broad based, with all eleven sectors reporting positive growth. U.S. earnings estimates for both 2017 and 2018 have remained steady since January, bucking the historic pattern of downward revisions throughout the course of the year (Chart 1). The picture is even more impressive outside the U.S., where earnings estimates continue to move higher. The Euro STOXX 600 is now expected to deliver EPS growth of 12.6% this year. EPS of stocks listed on the Japanese Topix is expected to rise 14.8% this year and 7.3% next year, giving them an attractive 2018E P/E of 13.6. We recommend overweighting euro area and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts in currency-hedged terms. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. The U.S. Labor Market Gets A JOLT, But Where's The Wage Growth? The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released on Tuesday provided more good news about the state of the U.S. labor market (Chart 2). The number of job openings rose to 6.2 million in June. There are now 28% more unfilled jobs in the U.S. than at the prior peak in April 2007. The number of unemployed workers per job opening fell to 1.1, the lowest level in the history of the series. One might think that with numbers like these, wage growth would be skyrocketing. Yet, it is not. While monthly average hourly wages did surprise to the upside in the June payrolls report, the year-over-year change remained stuck at 2.5%. This week's productivity report showed that compensation per hour increased by only 1% in Q2 relative to the same period in 2016. Other measures of wage growth generally point to some softening this year (Chart 3). Chart 2More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market Chart 3U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft Many commentators regard the lackluster pace of wage inflation - coming at a time when the unemployment rate has fallen below its 2007 lows - as a "mystery" that needs to be solved. As we argue in this report, there is less to this mystery than meets the eye. Properly measured, underlying wage growth in the U.S. has been rising for some time, and may actually be stronger than the "fundamentals" warrant. Wage inflation elsewhere in the world is more subdued. However, this is largely because progress towards restoring full employment has been slower outside the U.S. Is Wage Growth Being Mismeasured? How can U.S. wage growth be characterized as "strong" when it is still so weak by historic standards? Part of the answer has to do with that old bugbear: measurement error. Low-skilled workers have been re-entering the labor force en masse over the past few years, after having deserted it during the Great Recession. This has put downward pressure on average wages, arithmetically leading to slower wage growth. Most of the official wage series, including the Employment Cost Index, do not adjust for this statistical bias.2 In a recent research report, economists at the San Francisco Fed concluded that "correcting for worker composition changes, wages are consistent with a strong labor market that is drawing low-wage workers into full-time employment."3 In addition to cyclical factors, demographic shifts have depressed official measures of wage inflation. Historically, population aging has pushed up average wages because older workers tend to earn more than younger ones. The retirement of millions of well-paid baby boomers over the past few years has reversed this trend, at least temporarily. Chart 4 shows that the median age of employed workers has fallen for the past three years, the first time this has happened since the 1970s. Weak Productivity Growth Dragging Down Wages Unfortunately, there is more to the story than measurement error. Today's young workers are not better skilled or educated than those of previous generations. This, along with other factors that we have discussed extensively in past reports, has dragged down productivity growth.4 Nonfarm productivity has increased at an average annualized pace of less than 1% over the past few years, down from 3% in the early 2000s (Chart 5). Slower productivity growth gives firms less scope to raise wages. In fact, for all the talk about how wages are stagnant, real wages have risen by more than productivity since 2014. This has pushed labor's share of income off its post-recession lows. Chart 4Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Chart 5Real Wages Have Increased Faster ##br##Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years Real Wages Have Increased Faster Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years Real Wages Have Increased Faster Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years It remains to be seen whether the structural downtrend in the share of income going to labor will be reversed. One can make compelling arguments for both sides of the issue.5 But over a cyclical horizon of one-to-two years, it is highly likely that labor's share will rise. Labor's share of income is fairly procyclical. It increased significantly in the late 1990s and rose again in the years leading up to the Great Recession. Considering how low unemployment is today, it is not unreasonable to assume that it will maintain its cyclical uptrend. If so, this will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher inflation. Surveys Point To Faster Wage Growth... Surveys such as those conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, Duke University/CFO Institute, National Association for Business Economics, and various regional Federal Reserve banks suggest that employers are becoming increasingly willing to raise compensation in order to fill vacancies (Chart 6). Workers, in turn, are becoming more choosy. This can be seen in an improving assessment of job availability and a rising quits rate. Both of these measures lead wage growth (Chart 7). Chart 6ASurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 6BSurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 7Workers Are Feeling More Confident Workers Are Feeling More Confident Workers Are Feeling More Confident ...As Do Wage Gains Among Low-Income Workers Median weekly earnings of low-income workers have accelerated this year, even as wage gains among higher-income workers have hit an air pocket (Chart 8). For example, restaurant workers have seen pay hikes of nearly 5% this year, up from 1% in 2014. Wage growth among lower-income workers tends to be less noisy than for higher-income workers. The incomes of better-paid workers are often influenced by bonuses and other variables that may be driven more by industry-specific or economy-wide profit trends rather than labor slack per se. Less-skilled workers are usually the first to get fired and the last to get hired. Thus, wage pressures at the lower end of the skill distribution often coincide with an overheated labor market. This makes the trend in lower-income wages a more reliable gauge of underlying labor market slack. Wage Inflation Will Slowly Pick Up As Global Slack Diminishes We expect U.S. wage growth to rise over the next few quarters by enough to allow the Fed to raise rates in line with the dots. However, a more rapid acceleration - one that forces the Fed to raise rates aggressively - is improbable, at least over the next 12 months. This is mainly because the relationship between domestic labor market slack and wage growth is not as tight as it once was. Trade unions have less clout these days, which means it takes longer for a tight labor market to produce larger negotiated pay hikes. The labor market has also become less fluid, as evidenced by the structural decline in both the rate of job creation and job destruction (Chart 9). Wages tend to adjust more slowly when there is less hiring and firing going on. Chart 8Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: ##br##A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Structural Declines In Job Creation##br## And Destruction Structural Declines In Job Creation And Destruction Structural Declines In Job Creation And Destruction Perhaps most importantly, an increasingly globalized workforce has given firms the ability to move production abroad in response to rising wages at home. This suggests that wage growth in the U.S. is unlikely to increase significantly until falling unemployment begins to push up wages abroad. Wage Growth Around The World For now, wage growth in America's trading partners remains subdued. Euro area wage inflation is stuck between 1% and 1.5%, although with important regional variations (Chart 10). Wage inflation has accelerated to over 2% in Germany, but is still close to zero in Italy and Spain. Considering that unemployment in both countries remains well above pre-recession levels, it will be difficult for the ECB to tighten monetary policy to any great degree over the next few years. Japanese wage growth has picked up since 2010, but is still below the level consistent with the BoJ's 2% inflation target (Chart 11). Wage inflation is likely to ratchet higher over the next few years, now that the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to the highest level since 1974 (Chart 12). In a sign of the times, Yamato Transport, Japan's largest parcel delivery company, recently told Amazon that it would not be able to make same-day deliveries due to a shortage of available drivers. Chart 10Euro Area Wage Growth Remains ##br##Weak Outside Of Germany Euro Area Wage Growth Remains Weak Outside Of Germany Euro Area Wage Growth Remains Weak Outside Of Germany Chart 11Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Wage growth in Canada has actually declined since 2014. However, that is likely to change given that the unemployment rate has fallen close to nine-year lows. Falling unemployment rates should also boost wage inflation in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Chinese wage growth also remains brisk. Chart 13 shows that urban household future income confidence has picked up notably of late, as growth has improved and the labor market has tightened. Chart 12Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Chart 13Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Faster Wage Growth Will Ultimately Lead To Higher Inflation Chart 14The Decline In Inflation Expectations ##br##Have Weighed On Wage Growth The Decline In Inflation Expectations Have Weighed On Wage Growth The Decline In Inflation Expectations Have Weighed On Wage Growth Going forward, the combination of falling labor slack abroad and an overheated labor market at home will cause U.S. wage inflation to increase more rapidly starting in the second half of 2018. This will be a break from the past. Lower longer-term inflation expectations have tempered nominal wage growth over the past eight years (Chart 14). Both market-based inflation expectations and inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan's survey have fallen by about half a point since the financial crisis. The recent decline in headline CPI inflation from 2.7% in February to 1.6% in June may also explain why wage growth has dipped this year even as payroll gains have rebounded. Rising wage growth could begin to feed on itself. As we have discussed before, the Phillips curve tends to steepen once an economy reaches full employment (Chart 15). If the unemployment rate falls from 7% to 6%, this is unlikely to have a huge effect on wages. But if it falls from 4.5% to 3.5%, the effect could be substantial. A recent Fed paper concluded that "evidence strongly suggests a non-linear effect of slack on wage growth and core PCE price inflation that becomes much larger after labor markets tighten beyond a certain point."6 The implication is that once inflation does start rising, it could rise more quickly than investors (or the Fed) expect. Concluding Thoughts The past three U.S. recessions were all caused by the unravelling of financial sector and asset market excesses: The housing bust lay the groundwork for the Great Recession; the collapse of dotcom stocks ushered in the 2001 recession; and the failure of hundreds of banks during the Savings and Loan crisis paved the way for the 1990-91 recession. Unlike the last few recessions, the next one may end up being more akin to those of 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Those earlier recessions were generally triggered by aggressive Fed rate hikes in the face of an overheated economy and rising inflation (Chart 16). Chart 15The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear What's The Matter With Wages? What's The Matter With Wages? Chart 16Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? The good news is that neither wage nor price inflation is likely to soar over the next 12 months. This means that the bull market in global equities can continue for a while longer. The bad news is that complacency about inflation risk is liable to cause central bankers to fall increasingly behind the curve. Rising inflation will force the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes in the second half of 2018. This is likely to lead to a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. The resulting tightening in U.S. financial conditions could trigger a recession in 2019 or 2020. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for now, but prepare to scale back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017. 2 Unlike the widely followed average hourly wage series published every month in the payrolls report, the quarterly Employment Cost Index (ECI) does control for shifts in the weights of different industries in total employment. Thus, an increase in the relative number of low-paid hospitality workers would depress average hourly wages, but would not affect the ECI. Nevertheless, the ECI does not control for the possibility that the composition of the workforce within industries may change over time. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker does overcome this bias because it uses the same sample of workers from one period to the next. However it, too, is subject to a number of methodological problems. 3 Mary C. Daly, Bart Hobijn, and Benjamin Pyle, "What's Up with Wage Growth?" FRBSF Economic Letter 2016-07 (March 7, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education and Growth In The 21st Century," February 24, 2011. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June, 2014. 6 Jeremy Nalewaik, "Non-Linear Phillips Curves With Inflation Regime-Switching," Federal Reserve Board, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-078 (August 2016). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Dear Clients, We are publishing a Special Report prepared by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge who examines the case for allocating capital to EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. I hope you will find this report insightful. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan The relative performance of emerging market equities is challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years. This has led to renewed interest in EM from global investors, and warrants a revisit of the role of emerging market equities within a global equity portfolio. While EM recorded the highest regional equity return last cycle (2002-07), they were surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market in an efficient portfolio allocation. Recently, several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the appearance of much lower commodity exposure than is truly the case. But EM equities will still be correlated with broad commodities prices because the latter reflect Chinese growth dynamics. Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that the broad trend in commodities prices is likely to be lackluster over the coming year, at best. Consequently, EM stocks offer a poor risk/return profile, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio. Feature Chart I-1Change In Trend, Or Another Failed Rally? Change In Trend, Or Another Failed Rally? Change In Trend, Or Another Failed Rally? In U.S. dollar terms, the relative performance of emerging market (EM) stocks has been in an uptrend for over 18 months, and now appears to be challenging the downward trend channel that has been in place for the past seven years (Chart I-1). This has led to a renewed interest in EM, particularly among global investors. This report takes the recent outperformance of EM stocks as an opportunity to revisit their past and future contribution to a global equity portfolio, and what this might mean for an allocation to EM equities over the coming year. We conclude that EM's return behavior during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), its continued link to commodities prices, and China's growth dynamics all contribute to a poor risk/return profile for EM over the coming year. Barring compelling signs of a durable commodity bull market, investors should underweight EM stocks within a global equity portfolio. EM Equities In A Global Context: Some Historical Perspective When examining whether emerging markets are attractive from the perspective of global equity allocation, a starting point is to analyze the fundamental drivers of regional earnings. One major driver of global earnings over the past 20 years has been commodities prices; Chart I-2 highlights how 12-month forward EPS for stocks in all major regions have been correlated with commodities since the late-1990s. Chart I-2ACommodities Prices Are Correlated With Earnings... Commodities Prices Are Correlated With Earnings... Commodities Prices Are Correlated With Earnings... Chart I-2B...Even In Developed Markets ...Even In Developed Markets ...Even In Developed Markets This can be largely explained by the fact that commodities tend to be a pro-cyclical asset class. However, the super cycle in commodities prices in the 2000s not only bolstered the earnings of global resource companies, it also powered earnings growth for export-oriented industrials as well as domestic demand plays in commodity-producing countries. Chart I-3Strong Correlation Between ##br##Commodities And EM Strong Correlation Between Commodities And EM Strong Correlation Between Commodities And EM Emerging markets were among the largest beneficiaries of the commodity boom; net commodity-exporting countries made up roughly 45% of EM market capitalization throughout the last economic cycle, whereas stocks in the resource sector made up between 25-30% of the index by weight. Unsurprisingly, the relative performance of EM stocks closely tracked commodities prices over this period (Chart I-3). But despite this, EM was surprisingly not the "ideal" regional equity market last cycle within an active portfolio, even though it had the highest return. Chart I-4A presents a scatterplot of annualized regional equity volatility and return from 2002 - 2007, measured in US$ terms. The chart also shows the ex-post Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) efficient frontier, with Chart I-4B presenting the efficient regional allocation at each point along the frontier. Chart I-4AEmerging Market Stocks Had The Highest Return Last Cycle... Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Chart I-4B...But Were Only The Favored Market For High-Risk Portfolios Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Chart I-5From 2002-2007, Earnings Drove More ##br##Of The Rally In DCM Than EM From 2002-2007, Earnings Drove More Of The Rally In DCM Than EM From 2002-2007, Earnings Drove More Of The Rally In DCM Than EM While the charts show that the efficient allocation to emerging market stocks did rise to a maximum of 100% during the last economic cycle, it did not become the dominant region until the portfolio became considerably more volatile than the global equity benchmark. Indeed, Chart I-4B shows that developed commodity markets (DCM) were the preferred commodity play for most of the efficient frontier, owing to their superior performance in risk-adjusted terms. This risk-adjusted outperformance may have occurred because DCM returns last cycle were driven more by earnings than by multiple expansion; Chart I-5 highlights that EM stock prices benefitted from multiple expansion last cycle by outpacing forward earnings, versus the opposite in the case of DCM. Since the onset of the U.S. recession in 2008, Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B highlight that the ex-post efficient portfolio has been much more skewed than during the last economic cycle. The charts show that the frontier since 2008 has been extremely short, with efficient allocations only accruing to three countries with typically defensive stock markets: the U.S., Japan, and Switzerland, with a heavy bias towards the former. From the perspective of a global equity portfolio, this historical review leads to two conclusions: 1) investors should not allocate to EM unless they are bullish on commodities prices and, 2) if investors are bullish towards commodities, developed commodity markets have historically been a better risk-adjusted bet than emerging markets as a commodity play. Chart I-6ASince 2008, The Efficient Frontier Has Been Highly Skewed... Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Chart I-6B...Towards Defensive Markets (Mostly The U.S.) Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Chart I-7These Trends Give The False Appearance ##br##Of Lower EM Commodity Exposure These Trends Give The False Appearance Of Lower EM Commodity Exposure These Trends Give The False Appearance Of Lower EM Commodity Exposure EM And Commodities Prices: Has The Relationship Really Changed? More recently, a narrative has developed in the market that EM stocks are now far less sensitive to commodities prices than used to be the case. Proponents of this theory point to the following changes in the composition of emerging market equity benchmarks: First, the market capitalization weight of net commodity exporting countries has fallen precipitously since the onset of the collapse in oil prices in 2014 (Chart I-7, panel 1). On average, net commodity exporters made up between 40-45% of EM equity market cap from 2000 to 2013, but their share now stands at 27%. Second, Chart I-7, panel 2, shows that the market cap weight of resource sectors (energy plus materials) in emerging markets has fallen from roughly 30% to 14% over the past five years, a trend that pre-dated the decline in the share of net commodity exporters. Third, the enormous rise in the market capitalization of technology companies as a share of total EM market cap has been specifically cited by many market participants (Chart I-7, panel 3), especially since EM is now heavily overweight the tech sector relative to the global average. Broadly speaking, a fourth compositional change within the EM equity benchmark generally captures all of the shifts noted above, and is the focus of our remaining analysis below: the rise in the weight of emerging Asia as a share of overall EM (Chart I-7, panel 4). Among emerging markets, net commodity exporters tend to be located outside of Asia (with the exception of Indonesia and Malaysia), and emerging Asia accounts for essentially all of EM tech market cap. Consequently, investors who argue that EM equities have largely or fully decoupled from commodities prices are essentially arguing that emerging Asian equities are far less affected by changes in commodity markets than they used to be. This idea is deeply flawed, as shown below: Based on export share, Chart I-8 highlights that emerging Asia is far more economically exposed to China than developed markets and EM ex-Asia. While China is gradually becoming more of a services-oriented economy, Chart I-9 highlights that the sum of primary industry (raw material extraction), secondary industry (manufacturing and construction), and real estate services still account for over half of China's economic activity, well above that of industrialized nations such as the U.S. This underscores that emerging Asia's trade exposure to China is fundamentally rooted in economic activity that is closely linked to commodity demand. Chart I-8Emerging Asia Has High ##br##Trade Exposure To China Emerging Asia Has High Trade Exposure To China Emerging Asia Has High Trade Exposure To China Chart I-9Chinese Growth Still Largely ##br##Reflects Industrial Activity Chinese Growth Still Largely Reflects Industrial Activity Chinese Growth Still Largely Reflects Industrial Activity Within the commodity-linked segment of China's economy, Chart I-10 shows that there is little evidence of a weaker relationship between output and commodities prices. Simple regression analysis underscores that the Li Keqiang index, a growth proxy for China's industrial sector, is strongly linked to the year-over-year % change in spot commodities prices since the beginning of the commodity bull market, and that this relationship has in fact been increasing in strength over time. In addition, Chart I-11 underscores that China remains by far the largest consumer of base metals globally. Demand in the global oil market is considerably more diversified than the market for base metals, but China is the second-largest end market for oil (14% of global oil consumption), and accounted for over a quarter of the growth in total oil demand in 2016.1 Chart I-10Moderating Chinese Growth Will ##br##Be Negative For Commodities Moderating Chinese Growth Will Be Negative For Commodities Moderating Chinese Growth Will Be Negative For Commodities Chart I-11China Is By Far The Most Important ##br##End Market For Base Metals China Is By Far The Most Important End Market For Base Metals China Is By Far The Most Important End Market For Base Metals Finally, Chart I-12 shows a regression model between forward earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices, both at the overall index level and even for the financial sector (which, along with real estate, accounts for almost 25% of emerging Asian market capitalization). The fit for both models is extremely strong and, similar to the increasing strength of the Li Keqiang / commodity price relationship, the chart shows that commodities prices have begun to lead the growth in forward earnings, when the relationship used to be much more coincident. Chart I-12Emerging Asian Earnings Are Strongly ##br##Correlated With Commodities Prices Emerging Asian Earnings Are Strongly Correlated With Commodities Prices Emerging Asian Earnings Are Strongly Correlated With Commodities Prices The bottom line for investors is that Charts I-8-12 show emerging Asian economies are strongly linked economically to China, and that China remains the dominant driver of aggregate commodity demand. This means that while EM stocks may not have as much direct commodity exposure as they used to, they will continue to experience a high correlation with commodities prices because that the latter will be driven by swings in China's business cycle. In brief, Chinese growth fluctuations are instrumental to emerging Asia's economic and equity market performance. This is the rationale behind the very strong link between earnings expectations for emerging Asia and commodities prices: the latter reflect cyclical variations in the Chinese economy. EM Stocks: A Lackluster Bet Given The Outlook For Commodities Our earlier discussion of EM's historical contribution to a global equity portfolio revived elements of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), at least from an ex-post perspective. Ex-ante, investors need to make judgements about the likely risk, return, and cross-correlation of an asset when assessing its likely contribution to a diversified portfolio. Regarding the latter factor, Chart I-13 highlights that EM's correlation with global ex-EM has actually fallen quite substantially over the past year, which is a potential argument in the minds of some investors in favor of an increased allocation to EM. When recalling the lessons from Modern Portfolio Theory, most investors tend to focus on the key insight that lowly-correlated assets are valuable from the perspective of constructing a portfolio with an attractive risk/return profile. While this is true, many investors often forget that this is only valid given an expectation of a positive return. The efficient allocation to an asset that has a strongly negative correlation with other assets but has a negative return expectation is basically zero. This means that global investors eying an increased allocation to emerging markets should be squarely focused on EM equities' absolute performance, which as we have highlighted above are likely to be closely linked to commodity returns. Over the coming 6-12 months, Chart I-14 paints an uninspiring picture for commodities prices based on two measures of China's money supply. In turn, interest rates lead money growth and the rise in the former over the past nine months heralds further deceleration in the latter. This implies that the Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, which is negative for the broad trend in commodities prices. Chart I-13A Significant Decline, But Focus On Return ##br##Expectations, Not Correlation A Significant Decline, But Focus On Return Expectations, Not Correlation A Significant Decline, But Focus On Return Expectations, Not Correlation Chart I-14Interest Rates And Money Growth Paint ##br##A Poor Picture For Commodities Interest Rates And Money Growth Paint A Poor Picture For Commodities Interest Rates And Money Growth Paint A Poor Picture For Commodities As noted above, China's share of the global oil market is much lower than that of base metals, and we do not expect China's oil demand to shrink even if its industrial sector slumps. But from the perspective of allocating to EM equities within a global portfolio, Table I-1 highlights that broad spot commodity price indexes tend to be more relevant predictors of forward earnings growth than energy prices alone. This means that a rise in oil prices (were it to occur for idiosyncratic supply reasons) might be positive for major oil producers such as Russia,2 but is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks. Table I-1Explanatory Power Of Commodity Price Indexes In Modeling ##br##12-Month Forward Earnings Per Share Growth (2002-2016) Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM Finally, our analysis above has focused on the fundamental drivers of EM stocks, and has shown how DM investors are likely to have little basis to be bullish about emerging markets earnings over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-15 highlights how this is also true about the potential for EM multiple expansion relative to their global peers. The chart shows that periods of relative EM multiple expansion have, like relative earnings expectations, tended to be associated with rising commodities prices, implying that a significant re-rating of EM equities is unlikely over the coming year. This is in addition the fact that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms,3 meaning that there is less room for multiple expansion in EM than many investors believe. Chart I-15No Relative Multiple Expansion ##br##Without Rising Commodities Prices No Relative Multiple Expansion Without Rising Commodities Prices No Relative Multiple Expansion Without Rising Commodities Prices Investment Conclusions In terms of gauging the contribution of EM equities to a global equity portfolio, this report has highlighted the following points: While EM stocks had the highest return of any regional equity market during the last economic cycle (2002-2007), this return profile was accompanied by an outsized degree of volatility. For all but the riskiest portfolios, developed commodity markets were preferred as a commodity play over emerging markets. Several compositional changes within the EM equity universe give the outward appearance of much lower commodity exposure, but this exposure has merely become indirect. While EM's weight towards net commodity exporters and resource sectors has declined, this has shifted benchmark exposure to emerging Asia which has significant economic exposure to China and its industrial sector (the dominant driver of global commodities prices). As such, share prices in EM overall and emerging Asia in particular will still be strongly correlated with commodities prices even given the region's significant weight towards the technology sector.4 Cyclical indicators for China's economy suggest that broad commodity price gains over the coming year are likely to be lackluster, at best (and may very well be negative). Even if global oil prices were to rise, this is unlikely to provide a broad-based catalyst for EM stocks if industrial metals prices relapse, as we expect. These conclusions underscore that it is highly unlikely emerging market stocks will sustainably decouple from commodities prices over the cyclical investment horizon, and that the uptrend in EM relative performance since early-2016 has likely been driven significantly by expectations of further China's growth acceleration and commodity gains. In our judgement, these circumstances have created a poor risk/return profile for emerging market equities, justifying an underweight stance within a global equity portfolio over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017. 2 Note that we recommend an overweight stance towards Russian equities within an EM equity portfolio. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "EM Equity Valuations Revisited," dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 15. 4 For a further discussion of the impact of the technology sector on the relative performance of emerging market stocks, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Can Tech Drive EM Stocks Higher?" dated May 17, 2017, link available on page 15.

Feature Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update When Central Banks Turn Hawkish It seems almost as though, when central bank governors gathered in Portugal for the ECB's annual confab in late June, they agreed to start sounding more hawkish. ECB President Mario Draghi's speech included the line: "The threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz went ahead and on July 12 announced Canada's first rate hike in seven years. Indeed, BCA's Central Bank Monitors (Chart 1) suggest that, with the exceptions of Japan and possibly the euro area, all major developed central banks need to tighten monetary policy. Does this matter for risk assets, such as equities? Historical evidence suggests not, as long as the central bank is tightening because it is confident about the outlook for growth and unconcerned about financial risks (rather than, for example, reacting to a sharp rise in inflation). Equity markets typically move up in the early stages of a tightening cycle (Chart 2); it is only when the central bank tightens excessively (usually later in the cycle) that risk assets start to anticipate that this will trigger a recession. Even in the U.S. which, after four rate hikes since December 2015, is the furthest advanced in tightening, the real effective Fed Funds Rate is still -0.3%, below the 0.3% that the Fed believes to be the neutral real rate at the moment (Chart 3). The Fed expects the neutral rate to rise to 1% in the longer run. Chart 1Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Chart 2Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Chart 3Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative But the order in which central banks tighten will be a major driver of currencies (as has been clear with the sharp appreciation of the CAD and AUD in recent weeks). Our current asset recommendations are based on the belief that the market has become too complacent about the speed at which the Fed will tighten (with futures pricing only 26 bp of hikes over the next 12 months), and too nervous about the ECB (Chart 4). As the market starts to understand that the Fed has fallen a little behind the curve, and that the ECB will remain cautious (given continuing weakness in peripheral economies, and a lack of underlying inflationary pressures), we expect to see the dollar begin to appreciate again. A key to all this is whether the recent softness in U.S. inflation data (core PCE inflation has fallen from 1.8% YoY to 1.4% since January) proves to be temporary. A rebound in inflation would allow the Fed to continue to hike without bringing the real rate close to the neutral level yet. It is worth remembering that inflation is a lagging indicator: the recent weakness is largely a reflection of last year's soggy GDP growth (Chart 5), as well as some transitory technical factors (particularly drug and wireless data prices). The recent dollar depreciation should also boost inflation via the import price channel over the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 4Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Chart 5Inflation Lags GDP Growth Inflation Lags GDP Growth Inflation Lags GDP Growth Chart 6Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices However, with global equities having produced a total return of 35% since their recent bottom in February last year, and 17% year to date, valuations are unattractive and, on some measures, sentiment is quite optimistic (Chart 7). What catalysts are there left to give risk assets further upside? We see two. First, earnings. The Q2 U.S. results season has seen 77% of S&P 500 companies surprising on the upside at the sales line, with EPS rising 7% compared to the same quarter in 2016. Most of our indicators suggest that earnings have further to rise this year (Chart 8), yet the consensus EPS forecast for 2017 as a whole remains at just over 10%, where it has been since January. Strong earnings momentum is likely to remain a positive at least through the end of the year. Second, tax cuts. Our Geopolitical Strategy service1 remains optimistic that the U.S. Congress will pass tax legislation to come into effect in early 2018. The failure to repeal Obamacare means that the Republican Party will need a big legislative win going into the mid-term elections in November 2017. Tax cuts (which the market is no longer pricing in - Chart 9) is one policy on which there is little disagreement within the GOP. Chart 7Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Chart 8Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Chart 9No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More None of the recession indicators we highlighted in our most recent Quarterly 2 (global PMIs, the shape of the yield curve, or credit spreads) are pointing to a downturn in the next 12 months. So, given the environment described above, we are happy to remain overweight equities versus bonds, and to maintain our pro-risk and pro-cyclical tilts. But we continue to warn of the risk of a recession in 2019 - probably triggered by the Fed needing to tighten more aggressively - and might look to lower our risk profile in the first half of next year. Equities: We favor DM equities over EM. An appreciating dollar, rising interest rates, weak industrial metals prices this year and uncertain growth prospects for China all represent headwinds for EM equities. Our strong dollar view points to an overweight in U.S. equities in USD terms but, in local currencies, our preference is for euro area and Japanese equities. Both are relatively high-beta, have strongly cyclical earnings momentum, and central banks that are likely to stay dovish. In Japan, the falling popularity rating of the Abe administration might compel it to ramp up fiscal spending to boost the economy, which would help the Bank of Japan in its efforts to rekindle inflation. Chart 10Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Fixed Income: Our macro outlook, with faster rate hikes and rebounding inflation in the U.S., is very negative for rates. We are underweight government bonds, short duration and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. Valuations in credit are no longer particularly attractive but, with a 100 bp spread for U.S. investment grade bonds and a 230 bp default-adjusted spread for high-yield, returns are likely to be satisfactory as long as the economic cycle continues to improve. Currencies: Our fundamental view of the dollar is that relative monetary policy and interest rates point to further appreciation, especially against the yen and euro. The timing of the dollar's rebound, though, is harder to pinpoint. The euro could rise further over the next couple of months. However, given speculators' large net long positions in the euro - a big turnaround from the start of the year (Chart 10) - the likely announcement by the ECB in September or October of a reduction in its asset purchases might be the catalyst for a reversal (as a classic "buy the news, sell the rumor" event), particularly if Mario Draghi dresses it up as a "dovish tapering." Commodities: Oil inventories have begun to draw down in line with our expectations (Chart 11). Continued discipline by OPEC producers until next March, combined with a slowdown in the growth of U.S. shale production (reflecting the weaker crude price this year) should bring inventories down further (despite production increases in such countries as Libya and Iran), and push the price of WTI above $55 a barrel by year end. Industrial commodity prices have rebounded somewhat in the past six weeks, mainly on the back of moderately brighter economic data out of China (Chart 12). But, given uncertain prospects about the sustainability of this growth, especially beyond the Communist Party Congress in the fall, and amid some signs of weakness in Chinese monetary and credit aggregates,3 we remain cautious about the outlook for metals prices over the next 12 months. Chart 11Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Chart 12Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bca.research.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Review," dated July 3, 2107, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

This week we are sending you two Special Reports (both included in this document) that were previously published in the May and June editions of The Bank Credit Analyst. Both reports discuss the long-term outlook for global bond yields. The first report emphasizes the importance of demographics and the second focuses on the outlook for productivity growth. We are also sending a Weekly Report published jointly by our Global Fixed Income Strategy and U.S. Bond Strategy services. Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart I-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart I-1Global Disequilibria Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Chart I-2Global Shifts In The Saving ##br##And Investment Curves Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart I-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart I-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart I-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart I-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart I-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart I-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart I-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. Chart I-6Hollowing Out Hollowing Out Hollowing Out The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart I-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart I-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart I-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart I-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart I-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart I-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart I-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Chart I-9Working-Age Population To Shrink In G7 And China Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China Chart I-10Globalization Peaking? Globalization Peaking? Globalization Peaking? Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Chart I-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart I-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart I-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart I-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart I-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart I-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart I-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart I-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: Chart I-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Chart I-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart I-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart I-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink ...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink ...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table I-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table I-1Key Secular Drivers Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart I-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart I-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart I-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart I-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst MarkM@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. Chart II-1Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-4The Contribution To Growth ##br##From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Chart II-5Math Skills Around The World Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-6The Best Educated EMs Have The Worst Demographic Outlooks Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Emerging Markets: Interest Rates Tend To ##br##Be Higher Where Productivity Growth Is Weak Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In ##br##The 1970s While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-14Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-17Examples Of Capital-Biased ##br##Technological Change Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-20A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? A Less Market-Friendly Backdrop On The Horizon? A Less Market-Friendly Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low Transitioning To A Less Bond-Friendly World Transitioning To A Less Bond-Friendly World The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? 2014 Revisited? 2014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year The ECB Will Taper Next Year The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered The BoJ Has Already Tapered The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin Let The Fed Runoff Begin Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification