Policy

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating U.S. Inflation Is Percolating U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Policy Rate Expectations Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves Depressed Term Premiums Distort Yield Curves Depressed Term Premiums Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending ...In Part Due To Capital Spending ...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns August 2018 August 2018 We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains August 2018 August 2018 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) August 2018 August 2018 (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) August 2018 August 2018 Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods August 2018 August 2018 What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State August 2018 August 2018 Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) August 2018 August 2018 Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category August 2018 August 2018 Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events August 2018 August 2018 Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) August 2018 August 2018 Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure August 2018 August 2018 Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China August 2018 August 2018 The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) August 2018 August 2018 As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs August 2018 August 2018 III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Our forecast of higher geopolitical risk in 2018 is coming to fruition; President Trump's two key policies, economic populism (fiscal stimulus) and mercantilism (trade tariffs), will counteract each other; Stimulus is leading to trade deficits and a stronger dollar, while a stronger dollar encourages trade deficits. This is a problem for Trump in 2020; The administration will seek coordinated international currency moves, but the U.S. has less influence today than it did at the time of key 1971 and 1985 precedents; Favor DM over EM assets; favor U.S. over DM stocks; and expect Trump to threaten tariffs against currency manipulation. Feature "China, the European Union and others have been manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars [sic] gets stronger and stronger with each passing day - taking away our big competitive edge. As usual, not a level playing field... The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?" - President Donald Trump, tweet, July 20, 2018 "The dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." - Treasury Secretary John Connally, 1971, speaking to a group of European officials Chart 1A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation In April 2017, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," but also "Understated In 2018."1 At the heart of our forecast was the interplay between three factors: "Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD:" We argued in early 2017 that the political "path of least resistance" would lead to "tax cuts in 2017" and that President Trump's economic policies "will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs." The conclusion was that "even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows" (Chart 1). "Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD:" We also correctly predicted that "Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare." Even though Chinese data was peachy in early 2017, we pointed out that "Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally in the interbank system." We would go on to produce several in-depth research reports throughout the year that outlined these reform efforts and linked them to President Xi Jinping's reduced political constraints following the nineteenth National Party Congress in October.2 "European Political Risks Are Bullish USD:" Finally, we argued that a combination of political risks - e.g., the 2018 Italian election - and the slowdown in China would reverberate in Europe, forcing "the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects." Our conclusion in April 2017 - quoted verbatim below - was that these three factors would combine to force President Trump to try to talk down the greenback: The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. On July 20, President Trump put a big red bow on our forecast by doing precisely what we expected: talking down the USD by charging the rest of the world with currency manipulation. Speaking with CNBC, Trump pointed out that "in China, their currency is dropping like a rock and our currency is going up, and I have to tell you it puts us at a disadvantage." President Trump is correct: Beijing is definitely manipulating the currency, as we pointed out last week (Chart 2).3 Chart 2The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies Chart 3U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD But President Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too. His economic stimulus is inevitably leading to a widening trade deficit. With tax cuts and increased capital spending, U.S. demand is growing faster than demand in the rest of the world. This economic outperformance in the context of stalling global growth is leading to the greenback rally that we forecast (Chart 3). When the U.S. economy outperforms the rest of the world, the Fed tends to be in the lead of tightening policy among G10 economies, spurring a rally in the trade-weighted dollar index (Chart 4).4 A rising currency then reinforces the trade deficit. Chart 42018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over There is much uncertainty regarding President Trump's true preferences, but we know two things: he is an economic populist and a mercantilist. He has been clear on both fronts throughout his campaign. The problem for President Trump is that the two policies are working against one another. His stimulus has spurred a USD rally that will likely offset the impact of his tariffs, particularly the more modest 10% variety he has said he will impose on all Chinese imports (Chart 5). Chart 5Trump Threatens Tariffs On All ##br##Chinese Imports (And Then Some) The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Trump administration is therefore facing a choice: triple-down on tariffs, potentially causing a market and economic calamity in the process; or, use protectionism as a bargaining chip in a bout of orchestrated and negotiated, global, currency manipulation. As we pointed out last April, President Trump would not be the first to face this choice: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."5 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table. Connally also gave us the colorful quote for the title of this report and also famously quipped that "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first." The economists in the Nixon cabinet - including Paul Volcker, then the Undersecretary of the Treasury under Connally - opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers like Connally favored brinkmanship. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not by as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge merely four months later without meeting most of its objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the currency effects dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook once again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 6). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that the U.S. was serious about tariffs and had no problem with protectionism. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 7). Chart 6Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Chart 7The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism and currency manipulation in recent history. Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the 1985 agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan. Should investors get ahead of the Plaza Accord 2.0 by shorting the greenback? The knee-jerk reactions of the market suggest that this is the thinking of the median investor. For instance, the DXY fell by 0.7% on the day of Trump's tweet. We disagree, however, and are sticking with our long DXY position, initiated on January 31, 2018, and up 6.17% since then.6 Why? Because 2018 is neither 1985 nor 1971. President Trump, and America more broadly, is facing several constraints today. As such, we do not expect that he will find eager partners in negotiating a coordinated currency manipulation. Chart 8Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 9Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China (now in Japan's place) can afford significant monetary policy tightening that would engineer structural bull markets in their currencies. For Europe, the risk is that the peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, if the PBOC engineered a persistently strong CNY/USD, it would tighten financial conditions and hurt the export sector. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers were able to negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because of the underlying promise of growing trade. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017-18, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 8), average tariffs have bottomed (Chart 9), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 10). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 11). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Chart 10Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Chart 11Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Multipolarity: The U.S. is simply not as powerful - relatively speaking - as it was at the height of the Cold War (Chart 12). As such, it is difficult to see how President Trump can successfully bully major economies into self-defeating currency manipulation. The Cold War gave the U.S. far greater leverage, particularly vis-à-vis Europe and Japan. Today, Trump's threats of pulling out of NATO are merely spurring Europeans to integrate further as Russia is no longer the threat it once was. There are no Soviet tank divisions arrayed across the Fulda Gap in Eastern Germany. In fact, Russia is cutting defense spending and further integrating into the European economy with new pipeline infrastructure (which Trump has pointedly criticized). And China is overtly hostile to the U.S. and thus completely unlike Japan, which huddled under the American nuclear umbrella during the U.S.-Japan trade war. Chart 12The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around Is the Trump administration ignoring these major differences? No. There may be a much simpler explanation for President Trump's dollar bearishness: domestic politics. We only see a probability of around 20% that the U.S. trade deficit will shrink during the course of Trump's first term in office. Most likely, the trade deficit will widen as domestic stimulus supercharges the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world and the greenback rallies. Economic slowdown in China and EM will likely further expand the U.S. trade deficit as these economies cut interest rates and allow their exchange rates to drop. President Trump therefore has a problem. The only way the trade deficit will shrink by 2020 is if the U.S. enters a recession and domestic demand shrinks - but presidents do not survive re-election during recessions. If a recession does not develop, he will have to explain to voters in early 2020 why the trade deficit actually surged, despite all his tough rhetoric, tariffs, and trade negotiations. The charge of currency manipulation could therefore do the trick, blaming the rest of the world for the USD rally that was largely caused by U.S. stimulus. Bottom Line: We do not expect the Fed to respond to President Trump's rhetoric. The current Powell Fed is not the 1970s Burns Fed. As such, we would fade any upcoming weakness in the USD. We expect the dollar bull market to carry on in 2018 and to continue weighing on global risk assets, namely EM equities and currencies. Investors should remain overweight DM assets relative to EM in terms of broad global asset allocation, and overweight U.S. equities in particular relative to other DM equities. The major risk to our bullish USD view is not a compliant Fed but rather a China that "blinks." Beijing has begun some modest stimulus in the face of the economic slowdown produced by the Xi administration's aforementioned efforts to contain systemic financial risk. Over the next month, we will dive deep into Chinese politics to see if the trade conflict will prompt Xi to reverse his attempt to tighten policy and once again embrace a resurgence in credit growth. In the long term, however, we expect that the Trump administration will grow frustrated with the fact that its two main policies - economic populism at home and mercantilism abroad - will offset each other and that the U.S. trade imbalance will continue to grow apace. At that point, President Trump may decide to reach for two levers: staffing the Fed with über doves and/or ratcheting up tariffs to much higher levels. We expect the latter to be the more likely outcome than the former, and either would result in a serious blowback from the rest of the world that would unsettle markets. More importantly, it would be the death knell of globalization, stranding trillions of dollars of capex behind suddenly very relevant national borders. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China Down, India Up," dated March 15, 2017, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, "China: Party Congress Ends... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing?" dated July 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar," dated July 20, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org; and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936, and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back! (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?)," dated January 31, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

The Golden Rule: During the next 12 months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? In this report we demonstrate that an investor who can correctly answer that question will very likely make the right bond market call. We call this framework for market analysis the golden rule of bond investing. Exceptions: We identify a few periods when applying the golden rule correctly would not have led to the right market call. Such periods are rare, but they tend to occur when the market "fights the Fed". One such episode occurred as recently as 2017. Total Return Forecasts: We use the golden rule framework to generate total return forecasts for Treasury indexes of all different maturities and many different spread product indexes. It's easy to get lost in the sea of financial market news. Last week alone saw the suggestion of additional tariffs, weak housing data, strong consumer data, falling commodity prices and steep Chinese currency depreciation. It's not always obvious what's important for bond markets and what isn't. While there is no miracle solution to this problem, we propose one helpful question that investors should always ask themselves to help discern the signal from the noise. During the next 12 months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? If you are able to answer that question correctly you will make the correct bond market call most of the time, and any new piece of information should be judged on how it impacts your answer. In fact, the framework of viewing everything through the lens of answering the above question works so well that we call it the golden rule of bond investing. In this Special Report we illustrate the empirical success of the golden rule. We also draw on historical evidence to consider periods when the rule failed. Finally, we translate the golden rule into a method for forecasting total returns, and we generate total return forecasts for many different bond indexes, encompassing both Treasuries and spread product. Testing The Golden Rule's Performance Chart 1 on page 1 shows how well the golden rule has worked during the past 28 years. The top panel shows the 12-month fed funds rate surprise - the difference between the expected change in the fed funds rate that was priced into the market at the beginning of the 12-month investment horizon and the change in the fed funds rate that was ultimately delivered. A reading above zero indicates that the market expected a larger increase (or smaller decrease) than actually occurred, a reading below zero indicates that the market expected a smaller increase (or larger decrease) than actually occurred. The bottom panel shows 12-month excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index relative to a position in cash. Chart 1The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record If the golden rule works, then dovish fed funds rate surprises (positive values in Chart 1, shown shaded) will coincide with positive Treasury excess returns, and vice-versa. Chart 1 shows that this has indeed generally been the case. Digging a little deeper, we find a strong positive relationship between 12-month Treasury excess returns and the 12-month fed funds rate surprise (Chart 2) and a similarly strong relationship using Treasury index price return instead of the excess return versus cash (Chart 3). Dovish fed funds rate surprises coincide with positive 12-month Treasury excess returns 87% of the time for an average excess return of +3.9%. They also coincide with positive Treasury price returns 76% of the time for an average price return of +2.1%. Hawkish surprises coincide with negative 12-month Treasury excess returns 61% of the time for an average excess return of -0.3%. They also coincide with negative Treasury price returns 72% of the time for an average price return of -1.9% (Table 1). Chart 2Treasury Index Excess Return & ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Chart 3Treasury Index Price Return & ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Table 112-Month Treasury Index Returns And Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Total Treasury returns also factor in coupon income, and are therefore often positive even when the price return is negative. Still, Table 1 shows that Treasury index total returns average +7.1% in periods with a dovish fed funds rate surprise and only +3.4% in periods with a hawkish surprise. Further, 65% of negative total return periods occurred when there was a hawkish fed funds rate surprise. Of course, the golden rule is no panacea. The results presented above are impressive, but they assume that investors are able to correctly predict whether the market is over- or under-pricing the Fed. Making that determination remains a tall order. The key insight to be gleaned from the golden rule is that if a piece of information does not alter your opinion about the future path of the fed funds rate relative to expectations, then it should probably be ignored. The golden rule is certainly not the "be all and end all", but it is a very useful first step. Learning From Failures While Table 1 shows that correctly determining the 12-month fed funds rate surprise allows us to make the correct bond market call most of the time, it also shows that it doesn't always work. To understand why the golden rule might fail, it is useful to think about why it works in the first place. To do this, let's first consider that any Treasury yield can be thought of as consisting of three components: Treasury Yield = Fed Funds Rate + Expectations For Future Change In The Fed Funds Rate + Term Premium Based on this formula, it is obvious that if rate expectations and the term premium are held constant, a higher fed funds rate translates directly into a higher Treasury yield, and vice-versa. This is one reason why the fed funds rate surprise correlates with Treasury returns. The second reason that the fed funds rate surprise correlates with Treasury returns is that the expectations component of the above formula also tracks the fed funds rate surprise. In other words, investors are more likely to revise their rate expectations higher when the Fed is already in the process of delivering hawkish surprises. They are also more likely to revise their rate expectations lower when the Fed is delivering dovish surprises. This dynamic is illustrated in Chart 4. The top panel shows the correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and changes in rate expectations as measured by our 12-month fed funds discounter. The two lines are mostly positively correlated, though they do occasionally diverge. The largest divergences appear near inflection points in monetary policy - e.g. when the Fed switches from hiking rates to cutting. Such inflection points are often prompted by economic recession. Chart 4When The Golden Rule Doesn't Work When The Golden Rule Doesn't Work When The Golden Rule Doesn't Work The bottom panel of Chart 4 shows the much tighter correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and the change in the average yield on the Treasury Master index. These two lines also occasionally diverge, but only during periods when rate expectations move strongly in the opposite direction of what is suggested by the rate hike surprise. Crucially, the abnormal change in rate expectations has to be so large that it more than offsets the impact from the change in the fed funds rate itself. Such periods are rare, though we did experience one as recently as last year. Chart 5The 2017 Example The 2017 Example The 2017 Example The 2017 Episode Treasury returns in 2017 provide a textbook example of one of the rare periods when the golden rule failed. The Treasury Master Index returned +1.5% in excess of cash, even though the Fed lifted rates 25 bps more than the market expected at the beginning of the year. The reason for the divergence is that even though the Fed was in the process of lifting rates by more than what the market anticipated, the market continued to doubt the Fed's resolve and revised its expectations lower. At the beginning of 2017 the market was priced for 51 bps of rate hikes for the year. Then, just as the Fed started to lift rates more quickly than that expectation would suggest, core inflation plunged (Chart 5). The market started to price-in that the Fed would react to falling inflation by turning more dovish, but as it revised its expectations lower the Fed continued to hike. The end result is that the impact of the downward revision to rate hike expectations more than offset the upward pressure on yields from Fed rate hikes, and the Treasury index outperformed cash for the year. Forecasting Total Returns One final application of the golden rule is that it can be used as a framework for generating total return forecasts for different bond indexes. To illustrate how this is achieved we will walk through how we calculate such a forecast for the Treasury Master Index. First, we note that the current reading from our 12-month fed funds discounter is 79 bps. This means that the market expects 79 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months. If we assume that the Fed will lift rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months, then we have a hawkish fed funds rate surprise of 21 bps. As an aside, Chart 6 shows that we have consistently witnessed hawkish fed funds rate surprises since mid-2017, and our 12-month discounter has increased, as is typically the case. But this also means that the bar for further hawkish rate surprises is now much higher. Chart 6Market Has Underestimated ##br##The Fed In Recent Years Market Has Underestimated The Fed In Recent Years Market Has Underestimated The Fed In Recent Years We already demonstrated the strong correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and the 12-month change in the average yield from the Treasury index (see Chart 4). This allows us to translate our assumed fed funds rate surprise into an expected change in the index yield. In this case, that expected change in yield is +19 bps. With an expected yield change in hand, it is relatively simple to calculate an expected total return using the index's yield, duration and convexity: Expected Total Return = Yield - (Duration*Expected Change In Yield) + 0.5*Convexity*E(ΔY2) E(ΔY2) = 1-year trailing estimate of yield volatility In our scenario where we assume the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months, the above formula spits out an expected total return of +1.60% for the Treasury Master Index. Table 2 shows total return forecasts using this same method but with many different rate hike assumptions. For example, if we assume only 50 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months we get an expected Treasury Index total return of +3.37%. Table 2 also displays total return forecasts for different maturity buckets within the Treasury Master index. These forecasts are all generated using the same method, but we correlate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise with different Treasury yields in each case. One caveat here is that the correlation between the fed funds rate surprise and the change in Treasury yield declines as we move into longer maturities (Appendix A). This is because long-dated yields are less directly connected to near-term changes in the fed funds rate. As such, there is more uncertainty surrounding the total return forecasts for long maturity sectors. Table 2Treasury Index Total Return Forecasts The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Spread Product Total Return Forecasts With one additional assumption we can also apply our return forecasting method to different spread product indexes. That additional assumption is for the expected change in the average index spread. Using Table 3, you can simply pick a column based on the number of Fed rate hikes you expect during the next 12 months and pick a row based on whether you think spreads will remain flat, widen or tighten. Table 3Spread Product Total Return Forecasts The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing For example, if the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months and investment grade corporate bond spreads stay flat, we would expect investment grade corporate bond index total returns of +2.9%. For each sector, the spread widening scenario assumes that the average index spread widens to its highest level since the beginning of 2016 and the spread tightening scenario assumes the average index spread tightens to its lowest level since the beginning of 2016. All the spread scenarios are depicted graphically in Appendix B. For the High-Yield sector we make the additional adjustment of subtracting expected 12-month default losses from the average index yield. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Chart 7Change In 1-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Chart 8Change In 2-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Government-Related Spread Scenarios Government-Related Spread Scenarios Chart 9Change In 3-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Structured Product Spread Scenarios Structured Product Spread Scenarios Chart 10Change In 5-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Chart 11Change In 7-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Chart 12Change In 10-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Chart 13Change In 30-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Appendix B Chart 14Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Chart 15Government-Related Spread Scenarios Government-Related Spread Scenarios Government-Related Spread Scenarios Chart 16Structured Product Spread Scenarios Structured Product Spread Scenarios Structured Product Spread Scenarios

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

Highlights Many investors remain overweight equities; BCA recommends a neutral stance. Investors should position portfolios for rising rates. Fed Chair Powell weighed in last week on yield curve, the impact of the Trump administration's trade policies, financial stability and the level of the neutral Fed funds rate. More evidence of trade policy-related uncertainty, rising labor costs and deteriorating margins in the latest Beige Book. Feature The S&P 500 finished the week little changed, as investors braced for a wave of Q2 earnings reports this week and next. The S&P financials sector, which tends to lead the overall market, rose more than 1% last week, as the banks reported healthy Q2 results. The dollar sold off late last week after President Trump grumbled about the Fed's rate policy. BCA's view is that Fed Chair Powell will ignore Trump's comments on monetary policy and adhere to the central bank's mandate of low and stable inflation and full employment. Gold fell 1% on the week. BCA recommends monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Fed Chair Powell's semiannual policy testimony to Congress dominated the headlines last week. Powell discussed trade policy, the yield curve, the neutral rate and financial stability. The week's economic data was robust, suggesting that Q2 GDP will be well above the Fed's view of potential GDP. Housing starts were soft in June, but the weakness was due to supply issues, not tepid demand. Widespread supply constraints were prevalent in the Fed's latest Beige Book. The strong economic data, along with a 23-year high in the number of inflation words in the Beige Book pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up 6 bps to 2.88%. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team notes that the Fed's gradual pace of rate hikes toward a 3% equilibrium fed funds rate would be consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%. In late June, BCA downgraded its 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. We still expect that the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio will grind higher in the next year, as U.S. stocks move sideways and Treasury yields climb. We recommend that investors put proceeds from the sale of equity positions into cash. Not all investors are being risk averse. The National Association of Active Investment Managers (NAAIM) says that active managers have increased their equity risk tolerance since the start of the year (Chart 1). At 89%, the average exposure of institutional investors is close to the cycle high reached in March 2017, which was the greatest since the S&P 500 zenith in October 2007. Furthermore, BCA's Equity Speculation Index remains elevated (Chart 2). Moreover, the asset allocation survey from AAII shows that investors' allocation to equites (at 69% in June) are in line with the 2007 market top (Chart 3). However, equity holdings based on this survey were higher before the peak in equity prices in 2000. Moreover, consumers' expectations for stock price returns in the next 12 months remain close to cycle highs (U of Michigan) and near 24-year extremes based on the Conference Board surveys (Chart 4). Despite the optimism, individual sentiment toward equities remains muted in some surveys (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 1Active Managers Have Increased Equity Exposure This Year Active Managers Have Increased Equity Exposure This Year Active Managers Have Increased Equity Exposure This Year Chart 2Equity Speculation##BR##Is Elevated Equity Speculation Is Elevated Equity Speculation Is Elevated Chart 3Equity Allocations##BR##On The Rise... Equity Allocations On The Rise... Equity Allocations On The Rise... Chart 4Households Expect Higher Stock##BR##Prices In The Next 12 Months Households Expect Higher Stock Prices In The Next 12 Months Households Expect Higher Stock Prices In The Next 12 Months Individuals, banks and other financial institutions hold more equities today than at the height in 2007. However, insurance companies and pension funds' holdings of equites are not as elevated as they were in 2007 (Table 1). Somewhat surprisingly, households' cash positions are below the 2007 level and at a cycle low. However, the cash positions of financial institutions are four times as large as in 2007, partly due to the Fed's vigilance on financial stability. Pension funds and insurance companies have roughly the same allocation to cash today as earlier in the cycle (2012) and in 2007, just before the financial crisis. Table 1Asset Allocation: Comparison With Early 1990s Powell Tells All Powell Tells All Bottom Line: BCA's view is that the risk/reward balance for holding equities is much less attractive than it was at the start of the bull market in 2009. The economy is in the late stages of an expansion and is running beyond full employment. The Fed is raising rates. Moreover, equity valuations are elevated and forward earnings estimates are at their most optimistic in 20 years (not shown). The good news is already priced into the equity market. If macro developments evolve as expected, then we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or early in 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Absent a recession, we would move to underweight stocks if a wider trade war develops. We would consider temporarily moving our 12-month recommendation back to overweight if global equities sell off by more than 15% in the next few months. This shift would also be favored if our economic indicators remain constructive and the Fed either cuts rates or signals that it is on hold. 10-Year Treasuries: An Update BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends that investors remain below benchmark in duration. However, at 2.84%, the 10-year Treasury yield is 27 bps below its 2018 zenith of 3.11%, which was reached in mid-May. Chart 5 shows that the drop in yields since that time reflects both slower economic growth prospects and weaker inflation. Investors are concerned about the impact of Trump's trade policies on global growth and those fears have been stoked by the recent run of poor economic data in the U.S. Oil prices and inflation breakevens moved up in tandem earlier this year, and both are currently rolling over (not shown). U.S. inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and the central bank remains on course to raise rates two more times in 2018 and another four times next year. The market is pricing in only three more hikes in the next 18 months. The economy is at full employment. Moreover, at 3.6%, the average of the New York Fed and Atlanta Fed's Nowcasts for Q2 GDP growth implies that the GDP expanded well above the Fed's projection of potential GDP (1.8%) in the first half of the year (Chart 6). Moreover, the lagged effect of easier financial conditions suggests that GDP growth in the second half of the year will also be far above potential (Chart 7). Chart 5Inflation Breakevens##BR##Rolling Over Again Inflation Breakevens Rolling Over Again Inflation Breakevens Rolling Over Again Chart 6U.S. Economy Poised For Above##BR##Potential Growth in 2018 U.S. Economy Poised For Above Potential Growth in 2018 U.S. Economy Poised For Above Potential Growth in 2018 Inflation breakevens (Chart 5) are falling again despite mounting inflation pressures. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart 8, panel 4) climbed to 3.33% in June, its highest point since 2005. Moreover, wage inflation is trending up and the economy is beset with shortages and constraints.1 Chart 7Lagged Effect Of Easier Financial##BR##Conditions Will Boost Growth Lagged Effect Of Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Growth Lagged Effect Of Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Growth Chart 8Inflation Is##BR##Accelerating Inflation Is Accelerating Inflation Is Accelerating Bottom Line: Investors should position their portfolios for escalating rates. Global growth should bottom in the second half of the year and the U.S. economic activity reports will begin to outpace lower expectations. Moreover, with inflation at the Fed's target and mounting, inflation breakevens will adjust upward. BCA's position is that the Fed's gradual pace of rate hikes toward a 3% equilibrium fed funds rate would be consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%, well above current forward rates.2 Leading The Way S&P Financials provide a long lead time for market peaks. Table 2 shows that since the mid-1970s, a peak in the Financials sector relative to the S&P 500 occurs an average of 16 months before a peak in the overall index. The Bank (Industry Group) sector provides a similar warning (18 months), while the Investment Banking index's relative performance peaks 20 months before the S&P 500 tops out (Chart 9). Note that the leads times are slightly shorter in the last 15 years than in the 1976-2000 period (Table 2). Table 2Financial Stocks' Relative Performance Provides Early Warning Of Market Tops Powell Tells All Powell Tells All Chart 9Financials Lead The Broad Market Financials Lead The Broad Market Financials Lead The Broad Market In a recent report,3 BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service noted that cyclicals and interest rate-sensitive sectors, including financials, perform well when U.S. fiscal policy is loose and monetary policy is tight. Furthermore, our equity strategists found that rising rates boost top-line growth for banks, while the impact of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes should support business and consumer demand for capital. Moreover, our U.S. Equity Strategy team examined sector performance in late cycles, defined as the period between the peak in the ISM Manufacturing Index and the next recession.4 Financials outperform the S&P 500 in late-cycle environments; in the early stages (peak in the ISM's index to peak in the S&P 500) financials underperform the broad market, but they outperform after the peak in the S&P 500 and the next recession. Bottom Line: Our equity strategists recommend that investors remain overweight financials relative to the S&P 500. The late-cycle environment, along with the favorable regulatory climate, suggest that financials still have some room to run. The implication is that the peak in the overall U.S. equity market is still over a year away. Until then, the Fed will continue to remain vigilant on the financial sector and financial stability. Staying The Course At his semiannual Congressional testimony last week, Fed Chair Powell reaffirmed that the Fed will maintain its gradual pace of rate hikes. Following his presentation, Powell met with legislators and discussed the yield curve, the impact of the Trump administration's trade policies, financial stability and the level of the neutral Fed funds rate. Powell repeated his June statement that the yield curve can be considered an indicator of monetary stance. Like Powell, BCA's position is that a steep curve signals that policy is stimulative and short-term rates will need to climb. The opposite holds if the yield curve inverts. A flat yield curve indicates that the policy stance is neutral. The 2/10-year curve has flattened to about 25 bps. Our view is that if the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would suggest that the neutral rate is lower than what the Fed believes and policy is becoming restrictive. Furthermore, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team anticipates that curve flattening will occur as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be mitigated by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations at a higher level. On tariffs, Powell stated that "in general, countries that have remained open to trade, that haven't erected barriers including tariffs, have grown faster. They've had higher incomes, higher productivity." He added that more and broader tariffs are bad for the economy. Furthermore, Powell said that the FOMC has not yet seen evidence that the trade uncertainty has affected wages, but he noted that the central bank is concerned that capital spending plans may be at risk. The latest Beige Book (see next section of this report) finds that the business community is increasingly apprehensive about trade policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service anticipates that trade-related uncertainty will remain in place at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.5 BCA views financial stability as a third mandate for the central bank,6 along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Powell stated last week that financial stability vulnerabilities were "moderate right now," but he remarked that "we keep our eye on that very carefully after our recent experience." Chart 10 presents several indicators that the FOMC uses to assess financial vulnerabilities. Powell acknowledged the prominent status of financial stability when asked about the Fed's role. The central bank's Monetary Policy Report,7 released on July 13, has an entire section dedicated to financial stability. Powell spoke about the shape of the yield curve, saying it can relay a message about longer run neutral interest rates. BCA also recommends monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Chart 11 shows that when the Fed funds rate is above its neutral or equilibrium rate, the 2/10 curve is flat (panel 3). Moreover, gold tends to appreciate when the stance of monetary policy is more accommodative and then the metal depreciates when the stance becomes more restrictive (panel 4). The steep decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 preceded downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate. An upside price breakout would signal that we should bump up our estimate of the neutral rate. Conversely, a large decline in gold prices would imply that monetary policy is turning restrictive. Gold prices recently headed lower. Chart 10FOMC Is Closely Monitoring##BR##Financial Stability FOMC Is Closely Monitoring Financial Stability FOMC Is Closely Monitoring Financial Stability Chart 11The 2/10 Curve,##BR##Gold And The Neutral Rate The 2/10 Curve, Gold And The Neutral Rate The 2/10 Curve, Gold And The Neutral Rate Bottom Line: The Fed will continue with gradual rate hikes until it believes policy has returned to near neutral. The yield curve and gold will help to indicate when that point is reached. Widespread Chart 12Inflation Words At A 23 Year High Inflation Words At A 23 Year High Inflation Words At A 23 Year High The Beige Book released last week ahead of the FOMC's Jul 31-August 1 meeting suggested that uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy remained an important headwind in June and July. The Fed's business and banking contacts mentioned either tariffs (31) or trade policy (20) a total of 51 times, an increase from 34 in May and 44 in April. In March, as President Trump announced the first round of proposed tariffs, there were only three mentions of trade or tariff-related uncertainty. Moreover, uncertainty arose nine times in July (Chart 12, panel 4); all were related to trade policy. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis8 found that GDP per capita, wages and the investment-to-GDP ratio, all decline after tariffs are implemented (Chart 13). The study covered tariffs in 14 countries from 1980 through 2016. Importantly, the researchers noted that while the data showed that past tariff increases are followed by persistent decreases in economic activity, this evidence does not necessarily mean that higher tariffs triggered these changes. It is possible that other economic events may have driven tariff increases and ensuing recessions. Despite the headwind from trade, BCA's quantitative approach to the Beige Book's qualitative data continues to point to underlying strength in the U.S. economy, a tighter labor market and higher inflation. Moreover, references to a stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book, despite the recent rise in the greenback. The report also finds widespread concern about profit margins. Chart 12, panel 2 shows that at 81% in July, BCA's Beige Book Monitor ticked up from May's 67% reading. The July reading was the highest since early 2016. The recent low in November 2017 at 53% was when doubts over the tax bill weighed on business sentiment. The number of weak words in the Beige Book hit an 18 -year low in July. On the other hand, the number of strong words climbed in July to a 30-month high. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act was noted 5 times in the latest Beige Book, up from 3 in May, but still far below 15 mentions in March and 12 in April. The legislation was cast in a positive light in three of the five mentions. The implication is that most of the good news related to the tax bill has already been discounted by businesses. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move up modestly in 2018. The trade-weighted dollar has climbed by 6% since mid-April, but the elevated value of the greenback is not yet a concern for Beige Book respondents. Furthermore, based on the handful of references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar should not be a meaningful issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018. We will provide an update on Q2 S&P 500 earnings in next week's report. The dearth of recent dollar references is in sharp contrast with a flood of comments during 2015 and early 2016 (Chart 12, panel 3). The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. The disagreement on inflation between the Beige Book and the Fed's preferred price metric widened in July as the number of inflation words surged (Chart 12, panel 1). Mentions of inflation in July's Beige Book were the greatest since at least 1995. In the past, increased remarks about inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that core PCE may still rise. Chart 13The Economic Consequences Of Trade Wars Powell Tells All Powell Tells All Moreover, July's Beige Book continued to highlight labor shortages, especially among skilled workers in key areas of the economy. Shortages of qualified workers were reported in various specialized trades and occupations, including truck drivers, sales personnel, carpenters, electricians, painters and information technology professionals. Furthermore, several districts stated that a lack of workers was impeding growth. In addition, "widespread", which is part of BCA's inflation word count, was used 14 times in July to describe both labor shortages and swelling input costs, up from 11 times in May. We discussed the impact of escalating labor and input costs on margins in last week's report.9 The Beige Books released this year suggest that concerns about deteriorating margins is more prevalent in 2018 versus 2017. Only 57% of comments about margins in the first five Beige Books of 2017 noted deteriorating margins. In the 2018 Beige Books, 85% of references to margins indicated concern about higher labor, interest and raw materials costs. Bottom Line: July's Beige Book supports our stance that rising inflation pressures will result in at least two more Fed rate hikes by year-end and four next year. Moreover, the Beige Book confirms that labor shortages are restraining output of goods and services in some economic sectors. Furthermore, rising input costs are pervasive and will continue to pressure corporate profit margins. BCA expects both corporate profit growth and margins to peak later this year. The nation's tax policy still gets high marks from the business community, but the impact is fading. Ongoing uncertainty over trade policy will restrain growth. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Constrained", published July 16, 2018. Aailable at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Bond Bear Still Intact", published June 5, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening", published April 16, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge", published May 22, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," published July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20180713_mprfullreport.pdf 8 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2018/04/18/what-happens-when-countries-increase-tariffs 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Constrained", published July 16, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

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

Highlights The real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. There could be a major sea-change in ECB policy after November 2019 when Draghi's Presidency ends - just as there was after the last two changes in the ECB Presidency in November 2003 and November 2011. The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump surely will. Feature Chart of the WeekThe U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance Is A Near-Perfect Function Of Relative Monetary Policy The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance Is A Near-Perfect Function Of Relative Monetary Policy The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance Is A Near-Perfect Function Of Relative Monetary Policy Here in London last week President Trump trumpeted one of his biggest gripes: "The European Union treats the United States horribly. And that's going to change. And if it doesn't change, they're going to have to pay a very big price... Last year, we lost $151 billion with the European Union. We can't have that. We're not going to have that any longer, okay?" 1 President Trump is absolutely right about the size of the U.S. trade imbalance with Europe. But he is wrong to place the blame entirely on "trade barriers that are beyond belief". At least half of the imbalance - including with Germany - has appeared since 2014 (Chart I-2). Therefore, by definition, this part of the bilateral deficit is neither a structural issue, nor about trade barriers. Chart I-2Half of Germany's Export Surplus Appeared After 2014 ECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus ECB Policy Has Driven Up Germany's Export Surplus The Real Culprit For The Mushrooming U.S/Euro Area Trade Imbalance As we have identified on these pages many times, the real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. This experiment has resulted in a significantly undervalued euro, which has made the euro area grossly over-competitive vis-à-vis the United States, as calculated by the ECB itself. The Chart of the Week provides the damning and incontrovertible evidence: the U.S./euro area bilateral deficit is a near-perfect function of relative monetary policy. Of course, the ECB is targeting neither the euro nor the trade imbalance; the ECB is targeting its definition of price stability. The trouble is that the ECB definition of price stability omits owner-occupied housing costs, and thereby understates true euro area inflation by 0.5 per cent. To the extent that the ECB thinks in terms of real interest rates based on its own (faulty) definition of inflation, this means that the ECB is setting real interest rates that are far too low for the euro area's true economic fundamentals, resulting in the significantly undervalued euro and the associated trade imbalance (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... Chart I-4...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance ...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance ...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance The bilateral deficit, by definition, is based on a true cross-border comparison, so it is tracking the 'apples for apples' real interest rate differential almost tick for tick, as our charts compellingly show. This true real interest rate differential is stretched relative to the fundamentals. In effect, while incorrectly measured inflation is deceiving the ECB, the mushrooming trade imbalance tells us that something is seriously awry. That something is not trade barriers that are too high; that something is ECB monetary policy that is too loose. The Target2 Imbalance Reaches €1.5 Trillion The ECB's ultra-loose policy has spawned another huge distortion: the euro area Target2 banking imbalance, which now amounts to an unprecedented €1.5 trillion (Chart I-5). What is the Target2 imbalance (Box 1), and why should we care about it anyway? Chart I-5ECB Policy Has Lifted The Target2 Banking Imbalance To Euro 1.5 Trillion The EU's 'Horrible Treatment Of The U.S.' The EU's 'Horrible Treatment Of The U.S.' BOX 1 What Is Target2? Target2 stands for Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system. It is the settlement system for euro payment flows between banks in the euro area. These payment flows result from trade or financial transactions such as deposit transfers, sales of financial assets or debt repayments. If the banking system in one member country has more payment inflows than outflows, its national central bank (NCB) accrues a Target2 asset vis-à-vis the ECB. Conversely, if the banking system has more outflows than inflows, the respective NCB accrues a Target2 liability vis-à-vis the ECB. Target2 balances therefore show the cumulative net payment flows within the euro area. The ECB has delegated its QE sovereign bond purchases to the respective national central banks within the Eurosystem. In the case of Italian bonds, Italian investors have offloaded their BTPs to the Bank of Italy and deposited the received cash cross-border in countries with healthier banking systems - like Germany. Strictly speaking, this flow of Italian investor cash to German banks is not the same as the deposit flight during the depths of the euro debt crisis in 2012. Rather, we might call it precautionary cash management. Nevertheless, in Eurosystem accounting terms it still means that the Bundesbank has a new liability to German banks denominated in 'German' euros, while the Bank of Italy has a new asset - the BTP - denominated in 'Italian' euros (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). The Target2 imbalance is the aggregate of such mismatches between Eurosystem liabilities denominated in 'German and other core' euros and assets denominated in 'Italian and other periphery' euros. Chart I-6The Target2 Imbalance Reflects The##br## Cross-Border Flow Of Italian Investor Cash... The Target2 Imbalance Reflects The Cross-Border Flow Of Italian Investor Cash... The Target2 Imbalance Reflects The Cross-Border Flow Of Italian Investor Cash... Chart I-7...To German Banks ...To German Banks ...To German Banks Does any of this Target2 accounting gymnastics really matter? No, so long as a 'German' euro equals an 'Italian' euro, the imbalance is just an accounting identity within the Eurosystem. But if Germany and Italy started using different currencies, then suddenly all hell would break loose. The Bundesbank liability to German banks would be redenominated into deutschemarks, while the Bank of Italy asset would be redenominated into lira. Thereby the ECB would end up with much greater liabilities than assets, and a solvency shortfall potentially equivalent to hundreds of billions of euros would end up on the shoulders of the ECB's shareholders - largely, German taxpayers. Some people might argue that by increasing the cost of a divorce, an actual split becomes less likely. But this reasoning is weak. As we have seen in recent election and referendum outcomes, the biggest risk comes from a populist backlash against the status quo. And populist backlashes do not stop to do a detailed cost benefit analysis. A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? Although the ECB is unlikely to broadcast the undesired side-effects of its ultra-loose policy, it must by now be acutely aware that it is spawning huge imbalances. The costs are rising while the benefits are becoming questionable. The irony is that the one euro area economy that arguably does need stimulus - Italy - has a dysfunctional banking system which makes ultra-loose monetary policy largely ineffective anyway. Despite record low interest rates through the past four years, Italian bank credit growth has been virtually non-existent (Chart I-8). As we pointed out last week in Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle, the M5S/Lega coalition government is right to say: Italy would be better off with fiscal stimulus, not monetary stimulus.2 Chart I-8Italian Banks Have Not Been Lending Italian Banks Have Not Been Lending Italian Banks Have Not Been Lending The ECB will end its QE purchases at the end of this year, though the central bank has promised to maintain its current constellation of negative and zero interest rates "at least through the summer of 2019". However, it might be problematic to extend this forward guidance much beyond that. This is because Mario Draghi's eight year term as ECB President ends on October 31 2019, and it would be difficult both politically and operationally to tie the steering hands of his successor, especially if he/she comes from outside the current Governing Council. Interestingly, the last two changes in the ECB Presidency marked major sea-changes in policy direction: in 2003, Jean-Claude Trichet immediately stopped the rate cutting of his predecessor, Wim Duisenberg; and in 2011, Mario Draghi immediately reversed the rate hikes of his predecessor, Trichet. We would not bet against another major sea-change at the end of 2019 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? If the end of 2019 does mark a turning point in relative monetary policy, investors should plan for three medium-term repercussions: The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and European equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump's vow that "they're going to have to pay a very big price" surely will (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If A Stronger Currency Doesn't Hit European Exporters, Then President Trump Surely Will! If A Stronger Currency Doesn't Hit European Exporters, Then President Trump Surely Will! If A Stronger Currency Doesn't Hit European Exporters, Then President Trump Surely Will! 1 At the joint press conference with Theresa May. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to go long gold, whose 65-day fractal dimension is close to the lower bound that has reliably signaled previous tradeable trend reversals. Set a profit target of 3% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Long Gold Long Gold * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

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

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

Highlights Duration: Weakening global growth is unlikely to derail the Fed, which must also contend with mounting domestic inflationary pressures. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. MBS & CMBS: Non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Monetary Policy: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Feature Crosscurrents Two opposing forces are acting on financial markets at the moment and U.S. Treasury yields are caught in the middle. One the one hand, rising U.S. inflation and the gradual tightening of monetary policy are pressuring yields higher. But on the other hand, cyclical indicators point to a slowdown in global economic growth at a time when protectionist trade policies already have investors on edge. The end result is that U.S. Treasury yields are aimless, awaiting a catalyst that will push the prevailing winds in one direction or the other. On the domestic front, inflationary pressures are clearly mounting. The year-over-year core consumer price index rose to 2.23% in June while the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge moved up to 3.33%, its highest level since 2005 (Chart 1). The Fed's preferred core PCE deflator grew 1.96% during the 12 months ending in May, only a hair below the 2% target. Meanwhile, our Boom/Bust Indicator - a composite of global metals equities, commodity prices and U.S. unemployment insurance claims - has rolled over and investor expectations as measured by the Global ZEW survey have collapsed. Both indicators correlate strongly with long-maturity bond yields (Chart 2). Chart 1Inflation Picking Up Steam Inflation Picking Up Steam Inflation Picking Up Steam Chart 2Global Growth Slowdown Global Growth Slowdown Global Growth Slowdown The plunge in Global ZEW investor expectations is particularly interesting because the same survey shows that investors continue to describe current economic conditions as incredibly strong (Chart 3). Clearly, investors view the current state of global demand as constructive but are worried about threats to the global economy from trade barriers and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. Oftentimes, negative readings from the Global ZEW expectations survey precede similar drops in the current conditions survey, such as prior to the 2008 and 2001 recessions. But other times, such as in 1998, the drop in expectations sends a false signal that is quickly unwound. Chart 3ZEW Expectations Vs. Current Conditions ZEW Expectations Vs. Current Conditions ZEW Expectations Vs. Current Conditions Only time will tell which outcome will occur, but we think global growth will slow further before finding a floor.1 The implication for U.S. bond portfolios is that investors should maintain only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Weakening foreign growth and the resultant upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will negatively impact corporate bond spreads, as will persistent Fed tightening. Investors should also maintain below-benchmark overall portfolio duration, as rising inflation will make it difficult for the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle for any significant length of time. Picking Up Yield In MBS And CMBS? The combination of weakening global growth and rising domestic inflation makes finding attractive U.S. fixed income plays difficult. This week we consider the risk/reward proposition in residential mortgage-backed securities (Agency only) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (both Agency and non-Agency). We conclude that non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Chart 4 shows our excess return Bond Map, a good place to start when considering the risk/reward trade-off between the different spread sectors of the U.S. fixed income universe. The horizontal axis shows the number of months of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus an equivalent-duration position in Treasury securities. The vertical axis shows the number of months of average spread tightening required to earn 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the bottom-left are less likely to lose 100 bps, but are also less likely to gain 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the top-right are more likely to gain 100 bps, but are also more likely to lose 100 bps. In Chart 4 we use an interval from 2000-present to estimate monthly spread volatility. Since the Agency CMBS index only begins in 2014, it is excluded from this chart. Chart 4Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From 2000 - Present) The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem The Bond Map shows that neither Agency MBS nor non-Agency CMBS offer an attractive risk/reward proposition. Non-Agency CMBS carry a similar risk of losses as the riskiest corporate bonds while offering less return potential. Agency MBS offer only slightly greater return potential than Consumer ABS, but with considerably more risk. Chart 5 shows the same Bond Map but using a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility. This allows us to include Agency CMBS. Chart 5 shows that Agency CMBS clearly dominate Agency MBS, offering similar reward with less risk. It also makes non-Agency CMBS look much more attractive, since spread volatility in the CMBS sector has been much lower in the post-2014 period. Chart 5Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From May 2014 - Present) The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem Macro Environment Favors Residential MBS Despite the poor valuation picture painted by the Bond Map, the macro environment casts Agency MBS in a more favorable light. The two main factors that influence MBS spreads are residential mortgage lending standards and mortgage refinancing activity. Neither factor is likely to send MBS spreads wider during the next 6-12 months. Extension risk can also influence MBS spreads from time to time, but we have shown in prior research that the required yield increase is massive and unlikely to occur.2 The shaded regions in Chart 6 correspond to periods when banks are tightening lending standards on residential mortgage loans. We can see that lending standards tightened sharply during the financial crisis and have generally been easing since then. More important, however, is that the post-crisis easing in lending standards has been extremely modest. The median FICO score for new mortgage borrowers has barely come down, and remains well above pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). The Urban Institute's Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is also extremely low (Chart 6, panel 4). In addition, the household debt-service ratio remains incredibly healthy (Chart 6, bottom panel). With such high borrower quality, banks are much more likely to ease lending standards going forward. Mortgage refinancing activity has also been very low, and this should continue to be the case for some time. A good predictor of refinancing activity is the percentage of the MBS index (by par value) that carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate (Chart 7). At present, only 5% of the index carries a coupon above the current 30-year mortgage rate of 4.53%. We calculate that even if the mortgage rate fell to below 4% the percentage of the MBS index with the incentive to refinance would only rise to 38%, still consistent with muted refi activity. Only a drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5% would cause the refinanceable percentage to spike significantly, reaching 73%. Chart 6MBS: The Macro Environment MBS: The Macro Environment MBS: The Macro Environment Chart 7Refi Risk Is Non-Existant The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem Or course, mortgage rates are much more likely to rise during the next 6-12 months as the Fed continues to tighten monetary policy. In other words, the risk that an increase in refi activity will drive MBS spreads wider is very low. All in all, valuation is not attractive in the Agency MBS sector, but the macro environment is favorable and should ensure that spreads remain tight on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend a neutral allocation to Agency MBS, and could upgrade the sector further at the expense of corporate bonds as we approach the turn in the credit/default cycle. Fading Headwinds In CMBS? Chart 8CMBS: The Macro Environment CMBS: The Macro Environment CMBS: The Macro Environment Non-Agency Aaa-rated CMBS appear relatively unattractive in Chart 4 and somewhat attractive in Chart 5. The latter chart uses a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility and this period flatters the CMBS sector. The macro picture for the sector is also decidedly mixed. A typical negative environment for CMBS spreads is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans, falling demand for CRE loans and decelerating CRE prices (Chart 8). CRE lending standards were tightening throughout 2016 and 2017, while demand remained reasonably strong and CRE prices decelerated. But CMBS spreads performed quite well during this period, taking cues from the rally in corporate bonds rather than the slightly negative message from CRE fundamentals. More recently, we are receiving very mixed signals from our CRE indicators. Lending standards are no longer tightening, but CRE prices continue to decelerate and demand is close to unchanged. It is possible that a renewed easing in lending standards will cause CRE prices to accelerate, but that is far from certain. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service recently flagged numerous risks in the CRE space, including the fact that occupancy rates have already begun to contract.3 A possible signal that demand is waning. While the return of CRE lending standards to "net easing" territory is a positive development, it remains to be seen whether the easing will help spur a rebound in CRE prices in the face of weakening demand. The uncertain macro picture and the unattractive valuation shown in Chart 4 cause us to maintain an underweight allocation to non-Agency CMBS. In contrast, we remain overweight Agency-backed CMBS based on the attractive risk/reward profile presented in Chart 5. A Note On Monetary Policy Operations While we maintain that the expected pace of Fed rate hikes is by far the most important monetary policy question for investors, some technical issues related to the implementation of monetary policy have come to light during the past few months that merit a mention. These issues will likely gain even more attention later this summer when they are discussed at the Jackson Hole Monetary Policy Symposium where the chosen theme is "Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy". The main problem that has emerged during the past few months is that the effective fed funds rate has begun to creep toward the upper-end of the Fed's target channel (Chart 9). While the Fed currently targets a range of 1.75% to 2% for the effective fed funds rate, the rate itself currently sits at 1.91%, dangerously close to the top. Chart 9Is The Fed Losing Control? Is The Fed Losing Control? Is The Fed Losing Control? IOER Is A Treatment, Not A Cure The Fed tried to push the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range following the June FOMC meeting when it lifted the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER) by only 20 bps instead of 25 bps. Previously, the IOER had been set at the upper-bound of the Fed's target range, now it is 5 bps below. At best, this manipulation of IOER is a stop-gap measure that will not permanently solve the Fed's problem. This is because the Fed's problem is that the effective fed funds rate is rising because bank reserves are once again becoming scarce. The Fed currently controls interest rates using a "floor system". In order for such a system to work the Fed must ensure that the banking system is supplied with more bank reserves than it wants. The excess supply of bank reserves then pressures the effective funds rate lower, toward a "floor" interest rate set by the Fed. The Fed currently uses two different interest rates to act as the "floor", the IOER and the overnight reverse repo rate (ON RRP).4 The problem is that if banks are not over-supplied with reserves then the floor is not binding and the fed funds rate could break above the Fed's target range. Several factors have conspired to drain reserves from the banking sector during the past few months. First and foremost is that the Fed is allowing the securities to run off its balance sheet. Table 1 shows a simplified version of the Fed's balance sheet as of July 5 and as of September 28 of last year, just before the Fed started to shrink its bond portfolio. The change in each balance sheet item between the two dates is also shown. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem Changes in the Fed's securities holdings are the main driver of bank reserves, and Table 1 shows that the Fed has reduced its portfolio holdings by $156 billion since last September. This has drained $156 billion of reserves from the banking system. Reserves appear as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet, but as an asset on the banking sector's consolidated balance sheet. But Table 1 also shows that the U.S. Treasury's General Account at the Fed has increased by $170 billion since last September, draining bank reserves by the same amount. This occurred because the Treasury department has been rebuilding its cash holdings which had become very low due to repeated encounters with the debt ceiling. But this process is largely complete. The Treasury department was targeting a cash balance of $360 billion by the end of June and that target has essentially been met. Table 1 also shows that reverse repos declined significantly since September, offsetting some of the reserve drain from the run-off of the Fed's securities holdings and the increase in the Treasury's cash balance. As reserves become scarcer it becomes less necessary for banks to engage in reverse repos with the Fed, so reverse repo balances should continue to decline as long as the Fed is shrinking its securities holdings. There Is Only One Cure The key point is that if the Fed continues to shrink its balance sheet and drain reserves from the banking system, then at some point bank reserves will no longer be over-supplied and the Fed will lose control of interest rates if the situation is not rectified. What makes things particularly confusing is that nobody (including the Fed) is quite sure what level of bank reserves constitutes "scarcity" in the new post-crisis environment. Chart 10 shows that if the Fed's planned shrinking of its balance sheet continues un-interrupted then bank reserves will reach zero by March 2022. But under the stricter post-crisis regulatory regime, banks will desire reserve balances that far exceed what they demanded before the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the only way to find out at what point bank reserves become scarce is for the Fed to drain reserves from the system and wait for signs that interest rates are starting to rise above its target range. At that point, the Fed will be forced to stop shrinking its balance sheet in order to maintain control over interest rates. Based on the current behavior of the fed funds rate, we cannot rule out this situation arising within the next year. Some Notes On Treasury Operations Many have blamed sizeable T-bill issuance for the creep higher in the fed funds rate, and this is somewhat true. The Treasury department has been issuing T-bills in large amounts and parking the proceeds in its cash account at the Fed. As explained above, this has drained reserves from the banking system and put upward pressure on the effective fed funds rate. But the focus should be on the Treasury's cash balance and not T-bill issuance itself. This is important because going forward T-bill issuance will remain elevated. The Treasury must finance the increasing deficits mandated by Congress and has pledged to concentrate a large portion of this financing in bills. Specifically, the Treasury is targeting a range of 25% to 30% for the proportion of bills in the outstanding funding mix. At present, bills make up only 15% of the mix (Chart 11). But while bill issuance will stay strong, as long as the Treasury maintains its cash balance near current levels, then there will be no impact on bank reserves or the effective fed funds rate. Chart 10The Pace Of Balance Sheet Reduction The Pace Of Balance Sheet Reduction The Pace Of Balance Sheet Reduction Chart 11Gross T-Bill Issuance Gross T-Bill Issuance Gross T-Bill Issuance The Treasury department will also increase coupon issuance to finance the rising fiscal deficit (Chart 12), and has decided to do so by increasing issuance for every coupon but with a focus on the 2-year, 3-year and 5-year notes. Gross issuance in the 2-year and 3-year notes has already started to increase, and it will soon exceed 5-year and 7-year note issuance (Chart 13). Because so much of the Treasury's new issuance will be concentrated at the front-end of the curve (and in bills), it has dropped its prior stated goal of increasing the weighted-average maturity (WAM) of the funding mix. Its current policy states that "the WAM is just an outcome of an issuance strategy and not a goal in and of itself." Chart 12Gross Coupon Issuance Gross Coupon Issuance Gross Coupon Issuance Chart 13Gross Coupon Issuance By Maturity Gross Coupon Issuance By Maturity Gross Coupon Issuance By Maturity Bottom Line: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The Move", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "UnReal Estate Opportunity", dated July 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4 A detailed explanation of the floor system and its alternative "corridor system" can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification