Market Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy We reiterate our recent overweight calls in banks/financials and energy. Chemicals/materials and telecom services no longer deserve a below benchmark allocation. Pharma/health care and utilities are now in the underweight column. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Three Risks Three Risks Feature Equities poked higher early last week on the eve of a robust earnings season as quarterly EPS vaulted to all-time highs (Chart 1), only to give up those gains and then some as North Korea jitters spoiled the party and ignited a mini selloff later in the week. While geopolitical uncertainty is dominating the news flow and an escalation is possible, we doubt North Korea tensions in isolation can significantly derail the stock market. With regard to the SPX's future return composition, our view remains intact that the onus falls on earnings to do the heavy lifting. In other words, the multiple expansion phase has mostly run its course, and explains the bulk of the board market's return since the 2011 trough (Chart 2). Now it is time for profits to shine. Chart 1Earnings-Led Advance Earnings-Led Advance Earnings-Led Advance Chart 2EPS Has To Do The Heavy Lifting EPS Has To Do The Heavy Lifting EPS Has To Do The Heavy Lifting Low double-digit EPS growth is likely in calendar 2018. Three key factors drive our sanguine profit view. First, as we posited three weeks ago, financials and energy will command a larger slice of the earnings pie, a backdrop not yet discounted in sell-side analysts' estimates (please see Table 2 from the July 24th Weekly Report). Second, irrespective of where the U.S. dollar heads in the coming months, SPX earnings will benefit from positive FX translation gains in Q3 and Q4. Finally, as the corporate sector flexes its operating leverage muscle, even modest sales growth will go a long way in terms of profit growth generation. Operating profit margins are poised to expand especially given muted wage inflation (Chart 3). Nevertheless, lack of profit validation is a key risk to our bullish S&P 500 thesis. Considering the post-GFC period, global growth scares (and resulting anemic earnings follow through) were the primary catalysts for the 2010, 2011 and late-2015/early-2016 equity corrections. The SPX fell 16%, 19% and 14% in each of those episodes, respectively. As a reminder, early in 2010 the Fed's QE ended and the ECB was scrambling to contain the government debt crisis as the Eurozone and the IMF bailed out Greece, Portugal and Ireland. In 2011, recession fears gripped the world economy, when then ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet tightened monetary policy twice in the euro area, while in the U.S. QE2 ended (Chart 4) and the debt ceiling fiasco spiraled out of control in the late-summer. More recently, a global manufacturing recession took hold in late-2015/early-2016 and the commodity drubbing re-concentrated investor's minds. Chart 3Margin Expansion Phase Margin Expansion Phase Margin Expansion Phase Chart 4Liquidity Removal = Market Turmoil Liquidity Removal = Market Turmoil Liquidity Removal = Market Turmoil A persistent flare up in geopolitical risk (i.e. in addition to the possible escalation of North Korea tensions) may lead consumers and CEOs alike to pull in their horns and short circuit the synchronized global economic recovery. Putting this risk in perspective is instructive. Table 2 documents the historical precedent of geopolitical crises since the mid-1950s, the maximum SPX drawdowns, and bid up of safe haven assets courtesy of our Geopolitical Strategy Service.1 Under such a backdrop, low-double digit EPS growth would be at risk, also causing some equity market consternation. Table 2Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Three Risks Three Risks Table 2Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises, Continued Three Risks Three Risks Importantly, the Chinese Congress is quickly approaching in October and the dual tightening in Chinese monetary conditions (rising currency and interest rates) is unnerving. A related Chinese/EM relapse represents a risk to our bullish overall equity market thesis. Commodity producers/sectors would suffer a setback, jeopardizing the broad-based earnings recovery. Chart 5Mini Capex Upcycle Mini Capex Upcycle Mini Capex Upcycle Second, lack of tax reform is another risk we are closely monitoring that could put our upbeat SPX view offside. Lack of traction on this front as the year draws to a close will likely sabotage business confidence and put capex plans on the backburner anew. Moreover, this would shatter the confidence of small and medium businesses, especially given their greatest bugbears: high taxes and big government. Finally, repatriation tax holiday blues would cast a double dark shadow primarily over the tech and health care sectors: not only would shareholder-friendly activities like dividends and buybacks get postponed, but so would capex plans (Chart 5). One final risk worth monitoring is the handoff of liquidity to growth. Historically, there has been significant turmoil every time the Fed has removed balance sheet accommodation in the post-GFC era. We are in uncharted territory and the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet, likely to be announced next month, may have unintended consequences. Unlike QE and QE2 ending, this time around the ECB is also on the cusp of removing balance sheet liquidity, at the margin. Chart 6A shows that the equity market may come under pressure if history at least rhymes. While we doubt that a larger than 10% correction is in the cards -- in line with the historical S&P 500 average drawdown during geopolitical crises (middle panel, Chart 6B)2 -- and our strategy will be to "buy the dip", the time to purchase portfolio insurance is now when the S&P 500 is near all-time highs, especially given the seasonally-weak and accident-prone months of September and October. Chart 6ADay Of Reckoning? Day Of Reckoning? Day Of Reckoning? Chart 6BAsset Class Returns During Crises Three Risks Three Risks We are comfortable with our overall early-cyclical portfolio exposure, while simultaneously maintaining a bit of defense in the form of our overweight consumer staples and underweight tech positions. This week we are recapping and reiterating all the major portfolio moves we have made since early May. Banking On Faster Growth Bank profit growth is supported by three main pillars: the quantity, price and quality of credit. All three are set to improve. Solid house price inflation and a tight labor market should ensure that consumer credit growth also firms (Chart 7A), pointing to the potential for a broad-based bank balance sheet expansion. Our U.S. bank loan growth model suggests that banks could enjoy the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years (Chart 7B). Soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival are the key model drivers. BCA's view is that a better economy and rising inflation will materialize in the back half of the year, and serve as a catalyst to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve. Banks profit from overall rising interest rates in two ways: reinvesting at higher yields and assets repricing at a faster pace than deposits. Thus, a steepening yield curve would signal that bank profit estimates should experience a re-rating, provided the yield lift at the long end of the curve was gradual and did not choke off growth via a sudden spike (Chart 7A). Chart 7ABanks Flexing Their Muscle Banks Flexing Their Muscle Banks Flexing Their Muscle Chart 7BBCA Bank Loans & Leases Growth Model BCA Bank Loans & Leases Growth Model BCA Bank Loans & Leases Growth Model In terms of credit quality, non-performing loans and charge-offs are sinking from already low levels. It would take a significant deterioration in the labor market to warn that credit quality was about to become a profit drag. Importantly, the reserve coverage ratio has climbed to near 100%, as non-current loans have fallen faster than banks have released reserves. Historically, credit quality improvement has been positively correlated with rising valuations (Chart 7A). Finally, even a modest easing in the regulatory backdrop along with a more shareholder friendly outlook now that the banks aced the Fed's stress test should help unlock excellent value in bank equities. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight stance in the S&P banks index that also lifted the S&P financials sector to overweight. Buy Energy Stocks Chart 8Energy EPS Model Says Buy Energy EPS Model Says Buy Energy EPS Model Says Buy Energy equities are down roughly 20% year-to-date versus the broad market, driven by rising U.S. shale oil production, inventory accumulation, and investor doubts about whether all nations will comply with OPEC's mandated production cuts. There are tentative signs that this relative performance bear phase is drawing to a close. Three main drivers support our modestly sanguine view of energy stocks. First, the long term inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and the commodity complex has been reestablished; global growth suggests that a tightening interest rate cycle is brewing which should be supportive to energy stocks (top panel, Chart 8). Second, the steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing signs of fatigue with Baker Hughes reporting flattening growth in domestic oil rig count; At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely (Chart 8). Finally, our S&P energy sector Valuation Indicator has gravitated back to the neutral zone. Technicals are also washed out with our Technical Indicator breaching one standard deviation below its historical mean, a level that typically heralds a reversal. Recent anecdotes that the sell-side is throwing in the towel on their bullish oil forecasts for the remainder of the year are also contrarily positive. Bottom Line: Our newly introduced S&P energy sector relative EPS model encapsulates this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop (Chart 8), and gave us comfort to lift the S&P energy sector to a modest overweight position. DeREITing Chart 9Lighten Up On REITs Lighten Up On REITs Lighten Up On REITs REITs have marked time year-to-date, but recently operating conditions have downshifted a notch. Three key drivers argue for lightening up exposure on this newly formed S&P GICS1 sector. First, REITs had been unable to materially benefit from the 50bps fall in the 10-year Treasury yield from the mid-December peak to the mid-June trough. As the economy recovers from the first half lull, Treasury yields will resume their advance. This is a net negative for the fixed income proxy real estate sector (Chart 9). Second, real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still. The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure (Chart 9). Finally, according to the Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback. Bottom Line: We reiterate our downgrade of the niche S&P real estate sector to a benchmark allocation. Positive Chemical Reaction? Chart 10Chemicals Are No Longer Toxic Chemicals Are No Longer Toxic Chemicals Are No Longer Toxic In the summer of 2014 we went underweight the S&P chemicals index, anticipating an earnings underperformance phase, driven by weak revenues as chemicals manufacturers were furiously adding capacity to benefit from lower domestic feedstocks. This view has largely panned out, and now three factors underpin our more neutral bias: synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions. The global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high. Similarly, the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey also vaulted higher. Synchronized global growth suggests that final demand is on the upswing and should bode well for chemical top- and bottom-line growth (Chart 10). This has driven a relative weakening of the U.S. dollar, much to the benefit of U.S. chemical producers, whose exports appear to be displacing German exports. Global chemicals M&A supports our expectation of demand-driven pricing power gains. We think the benefits of consolidation are twofold: First, reduced revenues of the past decade have left the industry with outsized cost structures; consolidation should sweep that away under the guise of synergy, driving margins higher. Second, industry overcapacity has historically impaired profitability due to soaring overhead and more competitive pricing; greater scale should impose greater capital discipline. Finally, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better. This improving domestic final demand backdrop is reflected in higher resource utilization rates and solid pricing power gains have staying power (Chart 10). Bottom Line: Tentative evidence suggests that the bear market in chemicals producers is over. We reiterate our recent upgrade to neutral. Given that chemicals stocks comprise over 73% of the broad materials index, this bump also moved the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation. Utilities: Blackout Warning Chart 11Utilities Get Short Circuited Utilities Get Short Circuited Utilities Get Short Circuited While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrading in global economic expectations, utilities sit at the opposite end of the table (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, top panel, Chart 11), and therefore warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of CBs are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that still overvalued fixed income proxies will continue to suffer. Synchronized global growth and coordinated tightening in monetary policy spells trouble for bonds. Our sister publication U.S. Bond Strategy expects a bond selloff for the remainder of the year. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase (Treasury yield shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 11). Importantly, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio and utilities sector relative performance also has a tight inverse correlation (S/B shown inverted, second panel, Chart 11). The implication is that downside risks remain acute. Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, or of indiscriminate capital flight from all riskier assets, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty. Tack on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place. Bottom Line: We reiterate our recent downgrade to underweight. Pharma: Tough Pill To Swallow Chart 12Pharma Relapse Pharma Relapse Pharma Relapse Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals and both have roughly doubled over the past decade. However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (Chart 12). If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed in the July 31st Weekly Report, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (Chart 12). Industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (bottom panel). While this metric does not suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Bottom Line: We recently trimmed the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight, which also took the S&P health care index to underweight. Telecom Services: Signs Of Life Chart 13Telecom: Climbing Out Of Deflation2 Telecom: Climbing Out Of Deflation Telecom: Climbing Out Of Deflation Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. We had been fortunate enough to underweight this niche sector since late January, adding alpha to our portfolio. Nevertheless, we did not want to overstay our welcome and recently booked profits of 12% and lifted the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Our Cyclical Macro Indicator has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (Chart 13). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (Chart 13). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (Chart 13). Anecdotally, Verizon's first full quarter post the new pricing plans was solid and suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading. This will also stabilize relative profitability. In sum, the bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Green shoots on the industry's pricing power front and impressive management focus on cost structures argue against being bearish this niche sector. Bottom Line: We reiterate the recent bump to neutral in the S&P telecom services sector. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ibid. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The rise in the yen sparked by the verbal confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea is creating an opportunity to buy USD/JPY. The DXY is set to stabilize and may even rebound, removing a key support for the yen. The U.S. economy is showing signs of strength, and the bond market is expensive, a backup in yields is likely. Rising U.S. bond yields should be poisonous for the yen Until higher bond yields cause an acute selloff in risks assets, an opportunity to buy USD/JPY is in place for investors. Feature After benefiting from the U.S. dollar's generalized weakness, the yen has received a renewed fillip thanks to the rising tensions between North Korea and the U.S. If the U.S. were indeed to unleash "fire and fury" on North Korea, safe-haven currencies like the yen or Swiss franc would obviously shine. While the verbal saber-rattling will inevitably continue, our colleagues Marko Papic and Matt Gertken - head and Asia specialist respectively of our Geopolitical Strategy service - expect neither the U.S. nor North Korea to go to war. Historically, North Korea has behaved rationally, and it only wants to use the nuclear deterrent as a bargaining chip. Meanwhile, the U.S does not want to invest the time, energy, and money required to enact a regime change in that country. Additionally, China is already imposing sanctions on Pyongyang, and Moon Jae-in, South Korea's new president, wants to appease its northern neighbor. With cooler heads ultimately likely to prevail, will the yen rally peter off, or should investors position themselves for additional USD/JPY weakness? We are inclined to buy USD/JPY at current levels. DXY: Little Downside, Potential Upside Most of the weakness in USD/JPY since July 10 has been a reflection of the 3.7% decline in the DXY between that time and August 2nd. However, the dollar downside is now quite limited and could even reverse, at least temporarily. The dollar is currently trading at its deepest discount since 2010 to our augmented interest rate parity model, based on real interest rate differentials - both at the long and short-end of the curve - as well as global credit spreads and commodity prices (Chart I-1). Crucially, the euro, which accounts for 58% of the dollar index, is its mirror image, being now overvalued by two sigma, the most since 2010 (Chart I-2). Confirming these valuations, investors have now fully purged their long bets on the USD, and are most net-long the euro since 2013. Chart I-1DXY Is Cheap... DXY Is Cheap... DXY Is Cheap... Chart I-2...But The Euro Is Not ...But The Euro Is Not ...But The Euro Is Not Valuations are only an indication of relative upside and downside; the macro economy dictates the directionality. While U.S. financial conditions have eased this year, they have tightened in Europe, resulting in the biggest brake on euro area growth relative to the U.S. in more than two years (Chart I-3). This is why euro area stocks have eradicated their 2017 outperformance against the S&P 500, why PMIs across Europe have begun disappointing, and why the euro area economic surprise index has rolled over - especially when compared to that of the U.S. The improvement in U.S. economic activity generated by easing financial conditions also has implications for the dollar. As Chart I-4 illustrates, the gap between the U.S. ISM manufacturing index and global PMIs has historically led the DXY by six months or so. This gap currently points to a sharp appreciation in the dollar. Chart I-3Easing Versus Tightening FCI Easing Versus Tightening FCI Easing Versus Tightening FCI Chart I-4PMIs Point To USD Rally PMIs Point To USD Rally PMIs Point To USD Rally If the dollar were indeed to stop falling, let alone appreciate, this would represent a hurdle for the yen to overcome, especially as the outlook for U.S. bond yields is pointing up. Bottom Line: Before North Korea grabbed the headlines, the USD/JPY selloff was powered by a weakening dollar. However, the dollar has limited downside from here. It is trading at a discount to intermediate-term models, while macroeconomic momentum is moving away from the euro area and toward the U.S. - a key consequence of the tightening in European financial conditions vis-à-vis the U.S. Additionally, the strong outperformance of the U.S. ISM relative to the rest of the world highlights that the dollar may even be on the cusp of experiencing significant upside. The Key To A Falling Yen: Treasury Yields Upside An end to the fall in the USD is important to end the downside in USD/JPY. However, rising Treasury yields are the necessary ingredient to actually see a rally in this pair. We are optimistic that U.S. bond yields can rise from current levels. The U.S. job market remains very strong. The JOLTS data this week was unequivocal on that subject. Not only are there now 6.2 million job openings in the U.S., but the ratio of unemployed to openings has hit its lowest level since the BLS began publishing the data, suggesting there is now a limited supply of labor relative to demand. Additionally, the number of unfilled jobs is nearly 30% greater than it was at its 2007 peak, pointing to an increasingly tighter labor market. We could therefore see an acceleration in wage growth going into the remainder of this business cycle, even if structural factors like the "gig-economy", the increasing role of robotics, or even the now-maligned "Amazon" effect limit how high wage growth ultimately rises. The Philips curve, when estimated using the employment cost index and the level of non-employment among prime-age workers, still holds (Chart I-5). Thus, a tight labor market in conjunction with continued job-creation north of 100,000 a month should put upward pressure on wages. Even when it comes to average hourly earnings, glimmers of hope are emerging. Our diffusion index of hourly wages based on the industries covered by the BLS cratered when wage growth slowed over the past year. However, it has hit historical lows and is beginning to rebound - a sign that average hourly earnings should also reaccelerate (Chart I-6). Chart I-5The Philips Curve Still Works Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen Chart I-6Even AHE Are Set To Re-Accelerate Even AHE Are Set To Re-Accelerate Even AHE Are Set To Re-Accelerate The job market is not the only source of optimism, as U.S. capex should continue to be accretive to growth. Despite vanishing hopes of aggressive deregulation, the NFIB small business survey picked up this month. Even more importantly, various capex intention surveys as well as the CEO confidence index point to continued expansion of corporate investment (Chart I-7). Healthy profit growth is providing both the necessary signal and the source of funds to engage in this capex. This will continue to lift the economy. This is essential to our bond and our yen views, as it points to higher U.S. inflation. In itself, economic activity is not enough to generate higher prices. However, when this happens as aggregate capacity utilization in the economy is becoming tight, inflation emerges. As Chart I-8 shows, today, our composite capacity utilization indicator - based on both labor market conditions and the traditional capacity utilization measure published by the Federal Reserve - is in "no-slack" territory, a condition historically marked by bouts of inflation. Chart I-7U.S. Capex To Boost Growth Further U.S. Capex To Boost Growth Further U.S. Capex To Boost Growth Further Chart I-8No Slack Plus Growth Equals Inflation No Slack Plus Growth Equals Inflation No Slack Plus Growth Equals Inflation The recent increase to a three-year high in the "Reported Price Changes" component of the NFIB survey corroborates this picture, also pointing to an acceleration in core inflation (Chart I-9). But to us, the most telling sign that inflation will soon re-emerge is the behavior of the U.S. velocity of money. For the past 20 years, changes in velocity - as measured by the ratio of nominal GDP to the money of zero maturity - have lead gyrations in core inflation, reflecting increasing transaction demand for money. Today, the increase in velocity over the past nine months points to a rebound in core inflation by year-end (Chart I-10). Chart I-9The Pricing Behavior Of Small Businesses ##br##Points To An Inflation Pick Up The Pricing Behavior Of Small Businesses Points To An Inflation Pick Up The Pricing Behavior Of Small Businesses Points To An Inflation Pick Up Chart I-10Reaching Escape ##br##Velocity Reaching Escape Velocity Reaching Escape Velocity Expecting higher inflation is not the same thing as expecting higher interest rates and bond yields. However, we believe this time, higher inflation will result in higher yields. First, the Fed wants to push interest rates higher. Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen and her acolytes have been very clear about this, with the "dot plot" anticipating rates to rise to 2.9% by the end of 2019. While the Fed's preference and reality can be at odds, this is currently not the case. Our Fed monitor continues to be in the "tighter-policy-needed" zone. While it is undeniable that it is doing so by only a small margin, higher inflation - as we expect - would only push this indicator higher. Moreover, the diffusion index of the components of the Fed monitor is already pointing toward an improvement in this policy gauge (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Fed Monitor Will Pick Up The Fed Monitor Will Pick Up The Fed Monitor Will Pick Up Second, the Fed may have increased rates, and the spread between U.S. policy rates and the rest of the world may have widened, but the dollar has weakened this year. This counterintuitive result highlights that the Fed's effort has had little impact in tightening liquidity conditions. In fact, as we have mentioned, because of the lower dollar and higher asset prices, financial conditions have eased, suggesting liquidity remains plentiful. As such, like in 1987 or 1994, this is only likely to re-invigorate the Fed in its confidence that it can hike rates further, as liquidity conditions remain massively accommodative. Third, beyond the Fed's reaction function, what also matters are investors' expectations. At the time of writing, investors only expect 45 basis points of rate hikes over the upcoming 24 months, which is a reasonable expectation only if inflation does not move back toward the Fed's 2% target. However, our work clearly points toward higher inflation by year end. In a fight between the Fed's "dot plot" and the OIS curve, right now, we would take the side of the Fed. Fourth, it is not just 2-year interest rate expectations that seems mispriced, based on our view on U.S. growth, inflation, and the Fed. U.S. Treasury yields are also trading at a 36 basis points discount to the fair-value model developed by our U.S. Bond Strategy sister service (Chart I-12). Continued good news on the job front and an uptick in inflation would likely do great harm to Treasury holders. Finally, the oversold extreme experienced by the U.S. bond market in the wake of the Trump victory has been purged. While we are not at an oversold extreme, our Composite Technical Indicator never punched much into overbought territory during the Fed tightening cycle from 2004 to 2006 (Chart I-13). Moreover, with no more stale shorts, an upswing in U.S. economic and inflation surprises should help put upward pressure on U.S. bond yields. Confirming the intuition laid out above, the copper-to-gold ratio, a measure of growth expectations relative to reflation, has now broken out - despite the North Korean risks. In the past, such a development signaled higher yields (Chart I-14). With this in mind, let's turn to the yen itself. Chart I-12U.S. Bonds Are##br## Too Expensive U.S. Bonds Are Too Expensive U.S. Bonds Are Too Expensive Chart I-13Stale Shorts Have Been Purged, ##br##But Overbought Conditions Are Unlikely Stale Shorts Have Been Purged, But Overbought Conditions Are Unlikely Stale Shorts Have Been Purged, But Overbought Conditions Are Unlikely Chart I-14Where The Copper-To-Gold Ratio Goes, ##br## So Do Bond Yields Where The Copper-To-Gold Ratio Goes, So Do Bond Yields Where The Copper-To-Gold Ratio Goes, So Do Bond Yields Bottom Line: The U.S. economy looks healthy. The labor market is strong, and capex continues to offer upside. Because capacity utilization is tight and money velocity is accelerating, inflation should begin surprising to the upside through the remainder of 2017. With the market pricing barely two more hikes over the course of the next 24 months and U.S. bonds trading richly, such an economic backdrop should result in higher U.S. bond yields. Yen At Risk, Even If Volatility Rises JGB yields have historically displayed a low beta to global bond yields. As a result, when global bond yields rise, the yen tends to weaken. USD/JPY is particularly sensitive to yield upswings driven by actions in the Treasury market. This contention is even truer now than it has been. The Bank of Japan is targeting a fixed yield curve slope and does not want to see JGB yields rise much above 10 basis points. With the paucity of inflation experienced by Japan - core-core inflation is in a downtrend, ticking in at zero, courtesy of tightening financial conditions on the back of a stronger yen - this policy remains firmly in place. Emerging signs of weakness in Japan highlight that the BoJ is likely to remain wedded to this policy, even as Shinzo Abe's popularity hits a low for his current premiership. The recent fall in the leading indicator diffusion index suggests that industrial production - which has been a bright spot - is likely to roll over in the coming months (Chart I-15). This means the improvement in capacity utilization will end, entrenching already strong deflationary pressures in Japan. This only reinforces the easing bias of the BoJ, and truncates any downside for Japanese bond prices. Chart I-15The Coming Japanese IP Slowdown The Coming Japanese IP Slowdown The Coming Japanese IP Slowdown In short, while JGB yields might still experience some downside when global yields fall, they will continue to capture none of the potential upside. This makes the yen even more vulnerable to higher Treasury yields than it was before. Hence, based on our view on U.S. inflation and yields, USD/JPY is an attractive buy at current levels. But what if the rise in U.S. bond yields causes a correction in risk assets, especially EM ones? Again, monetary policy differences and the trend in yields will dominate. As Chart I-16 illustrates, USD/JPY has a much stronger correlation with dynamics in the bond markets than it has with EM equity prices. Chart I-16Yen: More Like Bonds Than Anything Else Yen: More Like Bonds Than Anything Else Yen: More Like Bonds Than Anything Else Chart I-17USD/JPY Falls Only When EM Selloffs Are So Acute That They Cause Bond Rallies USD/JPY Falls Only When EM Selloffs Are So Acute That They Cause Bond Rallies USD/JPY Falls Only When EM Selloffs Are So Acute That They Cause Bond Rallies Moreover, as the experience of the past three years illustrates, only once EM selloffs become particularly acute does USD/JPY weaken (Chart I-17). Essentially, the EM selloff has to be so severe that it threatens the Fed's ability to tighten policy, and therefore causes U.S. bond yields to fall. It is very possible that a rise in Treasury yields will ultimately generate this outcome, but in the meantime the rise in U.S. bond yields should create a tradeable opportunity to buy USD/JPY. Bottom Line: With Japan still in the thralls of deflation and the BoJ committed to fight it, JGB yields have minimal upside. Therefore, higher Treasury yields are likely to do what they do best: cause USD/JPY to rally. This might ultimately lead to a selloff in EM stocks, but in the meanwhile, a playable USD/JPY rally is likely to emerge. Thus, we are opening a long USD/JPY trade this week. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The U.S. labor market continues to strengthen, with the JOLTS Survey's Job Openings and Hires both ticking up. The NFIB Survey also shows signs of strength as the Business Optimism Index steadied at lofty levels, coming in at 105.2. Unit labor costs disappointed, but this supports U.S. equities. Nonfarm productivity also outperformed, pointing to improving living standards. U.S. data has turned around, with data surprises improving relative to the euro area. These dynamics are likely to prompt a resumption of the greenback's bull market. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Euro area data has been mixed: German current account underperformed, with both exports and imports contracting on a monthly rate, and underperforming expectations. The trade balance, however, outperformed; German industrial production failed to meet expectations, even contracting on a monthly basis; Italian industrial production outperformed both on a monthly and yearly rate, but remains well below capacity European data has begun to show the pain inflicted by tightening financial conditions. Relative to the U.S., the economic surprise index has rolled over. If this trend continues, EUR/USD will struggle to appreciate more this year, and may even weaken if U.S. inflation can improve. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data has been negative in Japan: Labor cash earnings yearly growth went from 0.6% in May to a contraction of 0.4% in June, underperforming expectations. Machinery orders yearly growth fell down sharply, contracting at a 5.2% rate and underperforming expectations. The Japanese economy continues to show signs of weakness, which means that the Bank of Japan will not let 10-year JGB yields rise above 10 basis points. In an environment of rising U.S. bond yields this will cause the yen to fall. However the question remains: Could a selloff in EM prompted by a rising dollar help the yen? This should not be the case, at least for now, as the yen is much more correlated with U.S. bond yields than it is with EM stock prices. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: BRC like-for-like retail sales yearly growth came in at 0.9%, outperforming expectations. However, the RICS Hosing Price Balance - a crucial bellweather for the British economy - came in at 1%, dramatically underperforming expectations. Also, the trade balance underperformed expectations, falling to a 12 billion pounds deficit for the month of June as exports sagged. As we mentioned on our previous report, we expect the pound to suffer in the short term, as the high inflation produced by the fall in the pound following the Brexit vote is starting to weigh on consumers. Furthermore, house prices are also suffering, and could soon dip into negative territory. All of these factors will keep the BoE off its hawkish rhetoric for longer than priced by the markets. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD gains are reversing as the U.S. dollar rebounds from a crucial support level. This has also occurred due to mixed Chinese and Australian data: Chinese trade balance beat expectations, however, both exports and imports underperformed; Chinese inflation underperformed expectations; Australian Westpac Consumer Confidence fell to -1.2% from 0.4% in August; This is largely in line with our view that the rally in AUD was would only create a better shorting opportunity. Underlying structural and fundamental issues will remain a headwind for the AUD for the remainder of the year. Iron ore inventories in China are also at an all-time high, which paints a dim picture for Australian mining and exports going forward. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 On Wednesday, the RBNZ left their Official Cash Rate unchanged at 1.75%. Overall, the bank signaled that it will continue its accommodative monetary policy for "a considerable period of time". Furthermore the RBNZ's outlook for inflation, specifically tradables inflation, remains weak. Finally, the bank also showed concern for the rise in the kiwi, stating that "A lower New Zealand Dollar is needed to increase tradables inflation and help deliver more balanced growth". Overall, we continue to be positive on the kiwi against the AUD. While the outlook for tradable-goods inflation might be poor, this is a variable determined by the global industrial cycle.. Being a metal producer, Australia is much more exposed to these dynamics than New Zealand, a food producer. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Data continues to look positive for Canada: Housing Starts increased by 222,300, beating expectations; Building permits also increased at a monthly pace of 2.5%, also beating expectations. CAD has experienced some downside as the stretched long positioning that emerged in the wake of the BoC's newfound hawkishness are being corrected. While we expect the CAD to outperform other commodity currencies, based on rate differentials and oil outperformance, USD/CAD should is likely to trend higher as U.S. inflation bottoms. EUR/CAD should trend lower by the end of this year as euro positioning reverts. As a mirror image, CAD/SEK may appreciate based on the same dynamics. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Last week we highlighted the possibility of a correction in EUR/CHF, given that it had reached highly overbought levels. This prediction turned out to be accurate, as EUR/CHF fell by almost 2% this week, as tensions between North Korea and the United States continue to escalate. Meanwhile on the economic front, Switzerland continues to show a tepid recovery: Headline inflation went from 0.2% in June to 0.3% in July, just in line with expectations. The unemployment rate continues to be very low at 3.2%, also coming in according to expectations. Inflation, house prices and various economic indicators are all ticking up, however, the economic recovery is still too weak to cause a major shift in monetary policy. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 The krone has fallen this week against the U.S. dollar, even as oil prices have remained relatively flat. This highlights a key theme we have mentioned before: USD/NOK is more sensitive to rate differentials than it is to oil prices. We expect these rate differentials to continue to widen, as the Norwegian economy remains weak, and inflation will likely remain below the Norges Bank target in the coming years. On the other hand, U.S. yields are set to rise, as a tight labor market will eventually lift wages higher and thus increase rate expectations. Meanwhile EUR/NOK, which is much more sensitive to oil prices than USD/NOK, will keep going down, as inventory drawdowns caused by the OPEC cuts should continue pushing up Brent prices. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Data in Sweden was mixed: New Orders Manufacturing yearly growth fell from 7.3% to 4.4%. Industrial production yearly growth increased from 7.5% in May to 8.5% in June, outperforming expectations. The Swedish economy continues to exhibit signs of strong inflationary pressures. Overall we continue to be bullish on the krona, particularly against the euro, as the exit of Stefan Ingves at the end of this year should give way for a more hawkish governor, who would respond to the strength in the economy with a more hawkish stance. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017Xx Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio 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, Garry Evans 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 later 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.

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.

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31st, 2017. The model has continued to reduce its allocation to the U.S. and now the U.S. allocation is the largest underweight. The funds from the U.S. are largely used to reduce the large underweight in the U.K. such that now the U.K. is in slight overweight. Other changes in the non-U.S. universe are the downgrade of Spain in favor of Germany, Italy and Netherland. These adjustments are mainly due to changes in liquidity indicators, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 88 bps in July, entirely due to the 213 bps outperformance of Level 2 model where the overweight in Italy, Spain , Australia and Netherland vs the underweight in Japan, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland worked very well. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmark by 257 bps. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates 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 (Level 1) 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. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 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 continue to be bullish on global growth and hence the cyclical tilt. However, consumer discretionary is the only cyclical sector to have an underweight. This recommendation is mainly driven by the unfavorable liquidity and technical backdrop. 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.

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

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. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Transitioning To A Less Bond-Friendly World Transitioning To A Less Bond-Friendly World

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Factors are falling into place for an earnings-led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Trim to a below benchmark allocation and execute this downgrade via reducing the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index to a below benchmark allocation. The bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Lift to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Downgrade to underweight. S&P Pharmaceuticals - Trim to underweight. S&P Telecom Services - Lift to neutral, lock in gains of 12%. Table 1 Growth Trumps Liquidity Growth Trumps Liquidity Feature Equities stayed well bid last week, trading near all-time highs. Broad-based earnings exuberance buttressed stock prices, trumping political uncertainty. The Fed stood pat and signaled a likely September commencement to a balance sheet wind down. Our fixed income strategists do not expect another hike until the December meeting; a less hawkish Fed augments the goldilocks equities backdrop. Three weeks ago1 we posited that earnings will take center stage and serve as a catalyst to sustain the blow off phase in the S&P 500. A mini profit margin expansion phase is taking root as the most cyclical parts of the SPX are flexing their operating leverage muscle. As long as revenues continue to grow, profit margins and profits will expand, especially given muted wage pressures. The lagged effect from a softening U.S. dollar will also likely underpin EPS in the back half of the year. We are surprised that mentions of the greenback are virtually absent from Q2 conference calls; the domestic market appears front of mind for investors and management teams alike. Globally, the dominant market theme is synchronized global growth paving the way to a coordinated G10 Central Bank tightening cycle. In other words, there is a handoff from liquidity to growth. Charts 1 & 2 highlight this fertile equity backdrop: First BCA's Synchronicity Indicator is as good as it gets. In fact in the G20, only Indonesia and South Africa have a manufacturing PMI below the boom/bust line. Second, our global EPS diffusion index is also at an extreme (diffusion index shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 1). In our sample of 44 EM and DM countries, none have declining year-over-year EPS. Third, global export expectations are recovering smartly, suggesting that global trade is on a solid footing and on track to vault to fresh cyclical highs (bottom panel Chart 2). Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth... Synchronized Global Growth… Synchronized Global Growth… Chart 2...Is Bullish For Equities ...Is Bullish For Equities ...Is Bullish For Equities While the IMF recently downplayed the U.S.'s importance as a force in global GDP growth contribution, the resurgent ISM new orders-to-inventories ratio signals that U.S. output will recover in the back half of 2017 (second panel, Chart 2). Importantly, not only are cyclical U.S. businesses vibrant but also the most cyclical corner of U.S. PCE is roaring. As consumers are feeling more flush, they tend to spend more on recreational goods and vice versa. According to the BEA, recreational goods & vehicles outlays are expanding at the fastest clip since 2005, near 10% and 15% per annum in nominal and real terms, respectively. Since 1960, this nominal series has been an excellent predictor of the business cycle. Such discretionary outlays have also been moving in tandem with overall nominal PCE growth, easily surpassing it during expansions, and significantly trailing it in times of distress (Chart 3). Currently, recreational goods spending underscores that overall PCE will likely rebound in the coming quarters. Chart 3The U.S. Consumer Is Alright The U.S. Consumer Is Alright The U.S. Consumer Is Alright Resurgent global (including U.S.) growth is unambiguously bullish for U.S. equities. This week we are taking down our overall defensive sector exposure another notch by making an intra-defensive sector switch. Health Care: In The ER The health care reform circus is ongoing in Washington, and such uncertainty will likely cast a shadow on health care stocks and reverse recent euphoria. Year-to-date health care stocks have bested the broad market by over 7%, and have retraced roughly 1/3 of the relative losses from the mid-2016 peak to the end-2016 trough. Technicals are extended, with the six month momentum stalling near the upper band of the past eight year range, and breadth is as good as it gets: 70% of health care sub-groups trade above their 40-week moving average (Chart 4). We are using this opportunity to lighten up exposure on this defensive sector and downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Drug inflation is the biggest risk for the sector. Relative pricing power contracted for the first time in seven years (top panel, Chart 5), warning that the health care top line contraction phase is far from over. This stands in marked contrast to the broad corporate sector that is growing revenues at a healthy clip. Chart 4Sell Into Strength Sell Into Strength Sell Into Strength Chart 5Selling Price Pressures Blues Selling Price Pressures Blues Selling Price Pressures Blues While investors appear content to look through this recent weakness as transitory, our sense is that robust pricing power gains of the past are history. Chart 6 shows that since 1982 drug prices have risen fivefold. In fact, since 2011 they have gone parabolic outpacing overall wholesale price inflation by 50%. Importantly, health care sector profits have skyrocketed alongside drug inflation (bottom panel, Chart 6). Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable, especially given recent intense drug price hike scrutiny. Granted, health care spending in the U.S. comprises over 17% of overall consumer outlays, the highest in the world, but it has also likely plateaued (not shown). Real health care spending is decelerating in absolute terms, and contracting compared with overall PCE. This suggests that selling price blues are demand driven and will likely continue to weigh on health care profits (second & third panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Unsustainable Pace Unsustainable Pace Unsustainable Pace Chart 7Even Demand Is Easing Even Demand Is Easing Even Demand Is Easing Worrisomely, there is no positive offset from international markets. The U.S. dollar has depreciated since the mid-December peak, but health care export growth is hovering around the zero line (bottom panel, Chart 7). News is also grim on the domestic operating front. Not only are selling prices softening, but also our health care sector wage bill is on fire, pushing multi-year highs. Taken together, operating margins will continue to compress, sustaining the recent down drift (Chart 8). Our newly introduced S&P health care sector profit model does an excellent job in capturing all of these forces. Currently, our relative EPS model suggests that the relative profit contraction phase will last into 2018 (Chart 9). Chart 8Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Chart 9Heed The Model's Message Heed The Model’s Message Heed The Model’s Message Factors are falling into place for an earnings led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. We are executing the health care sector downgrade via the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index. Trim Pharma To Underweight Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals since the mid-1970s, and both have roughly doubled over the past decade (top panel, Chart 10). However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (bottom panel, Chart 10). Is it also notable that relative spending on pharma soars in times of recession, highlighting the non-discretionary aspect of health care spending. If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed above, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (Chart 11). Similarly, BCA's view remains that recession is a 2019 story, thus a knee jerk spike in relative pharma spending and relative EPS is unlikely on a cyclical horizon. Chart 10Cresting Cresting Cresting Chart 11Soft Prices Are Bearish Soft Prices Are Bearish Soft Prices Are Bearish We doubt capital will chase this long duration group with a stable cash flow profile, especially in a synchronized global growth world. The missing ingredient is consumer price inflation, but the depreciating U.S. dollar suggests that the recent disinflationary backdrop will prove transitory. The NFIB survey of small business planned price hikes is still flirting with cyclical highs (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 12). That helps explain the positive correlation between the greenback and relative pharma profit estimates. Synchronized global growth is giving way to a coordinated tightening Central Bank (CB) backdrop with G10 CBs taking cover now that the Fed has paved the way. As a result, the U.S. dollar may continue to grind lower, to the benefit of cyclical sectors but detriment of defensives such as pharmaceutical stocks (bottom panel, Chart 12). Worrisomely, the export relief valve has not provided any significant offsets, despite the currency's year-to-date losses (top panel, Chart 12). Taking a closer look at domestic operating conditions is revealing. Not only are relative outlays steadily sinking but pharmaceutical production is contracting. True, whittled down inventories partially explain the letdown in industry output, but contrast the climbing pharma labor footprint. The implication is that declining productivity will continue to weigh on relative valuations (Chart 13). Finally, industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (middle panel, Chart 14). Similarly, the pharma interest coverage ratio continues to slide, moving in the opposite direction of the NFC sector (bottom panel, Chart 14). While neither of these metrics suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Chart 12No Export Relief No Export Relief No Export Relief Chart 13Waning Productivity Waning Productivity Waning Productivity Chart 14Modest B/S Deterioration Modest B/S Deterioration Modest B/S Deterioration Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P health care index to underweight. Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P pharmaceuticals index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. Book Profits And Upgrade Telecom Services To Neutral Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. Telecom services stocks are down 9%, while the S&P is up 10% YTD. In fact, in Q1 telecom services stocks were the sole sector to register negative year-over-year EPS growth on trough Q1/2016 earnings comparisons. In Q2, it remains at the bottom of the GICS1 sector EPS growth table, trailing the SPX by 500bps. We have been fortunate enough to be underweight this niche sector since late January, adding alpha to our portfolio. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and are booking profits of 12% and lifting the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Relative valuations just breached the one standard deviation below the mean mark according to our Valuation Indicator (VI), signaling that indiscriminate selling is overdone and nearly exhausted. Historically, such a depressed VI reading has led to a playable reversal. Importantly, the relative forward P/E multiple has fallen below the lows hit in the aftermath of the TMT bubble and is clocking all-time lows. Tack on washed out technicals probing a collapse close to two standard deviations below the long-term average and a reflex rebound is likely in the short-term (Chart 15). Extreme bearishness reigns in the sell-side community. Five year forward profit estimates plumbed all-time lows at a 10% decline rate versus the broad market (Chart 16). Surely the bearish story is baked into such glum readings. Chart 15Washed Out Washed Out Washed Out Chart 16Too Much Pessimism Too Much Pessimism Too Much Pessimism Meanwhile, our Cyclical Macro Indicator has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (second panel, Chart 15). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (Chart 17). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (Chart 18). Anecdotally, Verizon's first full quarter post the new pricing plans was solid and suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Chart 17Freefalling Freefalling Freefalling Chart 18There Is A Ray Of Light There Is A Ray Of Light There Is A Ray Of Light Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading. This will also stabilize relative profitability (top and bottom panels, Chart 18). While this sector trades as a fixed income proxy and the recent sell off in the bond market has weighed on relative performance, yield hungry and value investors will start bottom fishing in these stable cash flow, high dividend yielding stocks. However, we refrain from becoming overly bullish. Pricing power is still contracting and the cable industry's veering into wireless phone plan offerings has yet to play out. A more constructive sector view would require the following two developments: a trough in our sales model on the back of firming pricing power and a leveling off in relative consumer outlays signaling that demand for telecom services is on the mend. In sum, the bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Green shoots on the industry's pricing power front and impressive management focus on cost structures argue against being bearish this niche sector. Bottom Line: Lock in gains of 12% in the S&P telecom services sector and lift exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, LVLT, CTL. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

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

Highlights Reduced demand in oil-exporting countries and higher supplies from distressed states is whittling down the amount of oil being removed from the market this year, based on our latest supply-demand balances. As a result, even though OECD inventories will be drawn down to their five-year average levels by year end, this average will be a higher end-point than we projected last month. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) continues to reassure markets through anonymous media leaks it will cut production further to accommodate higher Libyan and Nigerian production. This is not unexpected, but it still is speculative. Ecuador's opting out of OPEC 2.0's production cuts raises the odds other financially distressed non-Gulf producers also will head for the exits. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain supported by actual production cuts, and the promise of further reductions by KSA and possibly other OPEC 2.0 members. Base Metals: Neutral. Labor and management at the Zaldívar copper mine in Chile are negotiating, according to Metal Bulletin. Separately, a three-year deal was agreed at the Centinela copper mine in Chile last week. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied on the back of lower inflation readings in the U.S., which suggested the Fed will back off aggressively pursuing its rates normalization policy. This would leave real rates low. Our strategic long portfolio hedge is up 1.0% since it was initiated May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We maintain our bearish view on grains. Fears that extreme heat in the U.S. Midwest and Plains will not be sufficient to counter the still-high ending-stocks expectations published in the USDA's WASDE last week. Feature Higher oil production is seeping into global balances. Lower prices, which are stimulating demand in oil-importing markets, are reducing incomes and demand in oil-exporting provinces. As a result, the rate at which inventories will draw this year is slowing. Our latest supply - demand balances shown in Table 1 indicate the net 900k b/d physical deficit we expected for 2017 has been whittled down to just under 500k b/d, as a result of production increases in Libya and Nigeria, and slower demand growth in oil exporters generally (Chart of the Week). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply -##BR##Demand Balances (mm b/d) Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Chart of the WeekHigher Production And Lower Demand Reduce##BR##Physical Deficits Versus Last Month's Projections Higher Production And Lower Demand Reduce Physical Deficits Versus Last Month's Projections Higher Production And Lower Demand Reduce Physical Deficits Versus Last Month's Projections Ecuador, a small-ish OPEC member producing about 550k b/d, opted out of the Agreement negotiated by KSA and Russia to remove some 1.8mm b/d of production from the markets. This indicates weaker states that are party to the OPEC 2.0 Agreement are finding it impossible to maintain compliance with the cuts they've obliged themselves to undertake in the face of lower oil prices. As a result, they are compelled to increase production in an attempt to recover lost revenue (R), by increasing their quantity (Q) sold when prices (P) are weak, so as to maximize P*Q = R while they can. This only works if they are alone in increasing production while others - notably KSA, other Gulf states and Russia - restrict output to revive prices. Otherwise, if all the distressed states in the OPEC 2.0 coalition took the same action, markets would be flooded with oil. This was demonstrated in the mid-1980s during KSA's netback-pricing regime, when the Kingdom priced its oil as a function of prices received by refiners. This collapsed prices, and, eventually, reined in free-riding on KSA's production cuts.1 While few of these states, mostly outside the Gulf, are capable of significantly increasing production, at the margin, they can have an impact. Production Increases In OPEC, U.S. Partly Counter OPEC 2.0's Best Efforts Year-to-date to June, Iran and Libya have added 110k and 140k b/d of production to the market vs. their respective Oct/16 benchmark levels of 3.7mm and 550k b/d against which the OPEC 2.0 deal is being assessed. June production for these states was up 120k and 300k b/d for Iran and Libya, respectively, vs. October levels, while Nigeria's output was up 90k b/d (Chart 2). Libya and Nigeria are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 deal. Nonetheless, these states together with Iran added close to 500k b/d vs. their Oct/16 output levels in June, without an offsetting decline from members of the OPEC 2.0 coalition. Gulf OPEC ex Iran production is down some 850k b/d on average at 24.6mm b/d in 1H17 vs. Oct/16 levels, while non-Gulf OPEC production is down 215k b/d at 7.5mm b/d. We still see OPEC 2.0's production significantly below the EIA's estimate to March 2018 (Chart 3), which drives our view of inventory behavior. U.S. production also was higher in 1H17, as WTI prices rallied in response to the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal (Chart 4). For 1H17, U.S. crude oil production was up 230k b/d vs. 4Q16 levels, at 9.04mm b/d, led by higher shale-oil output. Chart 2Almost 500k b/d Added To Oct/16 Output##BR##By Iran, Libya, And Nigeria In June Almost 500k b/d Added To Oct/16 Output By Iran, Libya, And Nigeria In June Almost 500k b/d Added To Oct/16 Output By Iran, Libya, And Nigeria In June Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Cuts Drive##BR##Inventory Draws OPEC 2.0 Cuts Drive Inventory Draws OPEC 2.0 Cuts Drive Inventory Draws Chart 4U.S. Crude Production##BR##Grows In 1H17 U.S. Crude Production Grows In 1H17 U.S. Crude Production Grows In 1H17 Slower Demand Growth Reduces Storage Draw On the demand side, we've lowered our estimate of demand growth this year to close to 1.37mm b/d, down nearly 110k b/d vs. our earlier May estimate. This results from lower consumption in oil exporting states. The combination of stronger supply growth and weaker demand growth reduces our estimated physical deficit for this year to 470k b/d from close to 900k b/d in our May balances estimates. These revised supply - demand estimates still produce enough of a physical deficit to allow storage to fall to five-year average levels (Chart 5). However, with the drawdowns prolonged by slower supply losses and reduced demand, inventories are now projected to remain above 2.8 billion bbls versus our earlier estimate of inventories declining to ~2.75 billion barrels by end-2017 or early 2018. Chart 5OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Chart 5OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher OECD Storage Draws To Five-Year Average Levels, But Higher Supply And Lower Demand Keep This Level Higher Net, at the end of this drawdown, storage will be higher than expected, even if it does make it to five-year average levels. This will leave less room for OPEC 2.0 members to implement a strategy to backwardate the forward WTI curve so as to slow the rate at which shale-oil rigs return to the field, which we've discussed in previous research.2 More Cuts Required By OPEC 2.0 Going into its St. Petersburg meetings next week, there are clearly defined issues to be addressed by OPEC 2.0. The foregoing suggests additional cuts will be needed to empty storage sufficiently by yearend for OPEC 2.0 to be able to move to the next phase of its plan to regain some influence over the evolution of oil prices, particularly the U.S. benchmark WTI price, which drives hedging and profitability of U.S. shale producers. Over the short term, this effort likely will be clearly supported by KSA's stated intention to reduce exports to the U.S. market (Chart 6). All else equal, this will result in sharper draws in the high-frequency U.S. weekly inventory data, by augmenting reduced shipments to the U.S. from OPEC overall (Chart 7). Chart 6KSA's To Reduce##BR##Exports To The U.S. KSA's To Reduce Exports To The U.S. KSA's To Reduce Exports To The U.S. Chart 7OPEC Exports To The U.S. To Fall Further##BR##When KSA Reduces Shipments OPEC Exports To The U.S. To Fall Further When KSA Reduces Shipments OPEC Exports To The U.S. To Fall Further When KSA Reduces Shipments More substantive price-support and inventory-draining measures, as noted at the top of this article, will have to involve further production cuts by OPEC 2.0. KSA again is signaling it is open to additional production cuts, in order to normalize oil inventories.3 We have no doubt the Kingdom's Gulf allies - particularly Kuwait and the UAE - will support KSA in this effort. We also expect Russia to be supportive of this effort. The size of the cuts likely will exceed 500k b/d, so as to offset the production gains of Libya and Nigeria. Iran's higher production discussed herein, and Iraq's recent assertiveness in claiming "the right" to increase its production given the size of its reserves, suggests a short and a long game for the leadership of OPEC 2.0. In the short-term, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria will be constrained by lack of funds to significantly increase production. Thus, OPEC 2.0 - mostly KSA and its allies - can cut production without triggering an immediate response from these states, which will allow storage to resume drawing at a faster rate. For OPEC 2.0 to have a meaningful effect on U.S. shale production, the stronger storage draws in the near term would have to be accompanied by forward guidance from KSA, Russia and their allies that production will be increased in the medium term - 6 months or so out - so that continued demand growth can be accommodated by higher supplies. This would require storage and production flexibility by OPEC 2.0's leaders. Should all of this fall in place, we would expect a backwardation to develop toward yearend, which would be the first step in a longer-term strategy by OPEC 2.0 to slow the rate at which horizontal rigs return to drilling in the shale fields. Bottom Line: Higher oil production from Libya, Iran and Nigeria, coupled with a slight downgrade in demand growth, will reduce the physical deficit we expected this year. This will, all else equal, reduce the rate at which OECD storage draws, and raise the level of five-year average inventory levels by yearend. We do not believe this is a favorable outcome for OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA and Russia, if they are intent on regaining some influence over the evolution of oil prices. For this reason, we believe KSA and its Gulf Arab allies will reduce production further to put the inventory draws back on track. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes - and will look for opportunities to gain upside exposure once we get clear signaling from OPEC 2.0 leadership. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Sideshow In Vienna," published October 23, 2014, for a review of netback pricing by KSA. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports of April 6, 2017, entitled "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One," and March 30, 2017, entitled "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil" for a discussion of this strategy. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Saudi Arabia still aims to reduce supply; weighs Nigerian, Libyan barrels," published by reuters.com on July 18, 2017. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Odds Continue To Favor Lower Oil Inventories Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016